https://www.theatlantic.com

  • The Climate Economy Is About to Explode - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/10/inflation-reduction-act-climate-economy/671659

    Late last month, analysts at the investment bank Credit Suisse published a research note about America’s new climate law that went nearly unnoticed. The Inflation Reduction Act, the bank argued, is even more important than has been recognized so far: The IRA will “will have a profound effect across industries in the next decade and beyond” and could ultimately shape the direction of the American economy, the bank said. The report shows how even after the bonanza of climate-bill coverage earlier this year, we’re still only beginning to understand how the law works and what it might mean for the economy.

    […]

    By 2029, U.S. solar and wind could be the cheapest in the world at less than $5 per megawatt-hour, the bank projects; it will also become competitive in hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and wind turbines.

    #climat #états-unis

  • Covid-19 : la circulation de BA.5 en forte progression en France - Coronavirus - Le Télégramme

    Surprise ! … ou pas…

    https://www.letelegramme.fr/coronavirus/covid-19-les-dernieres-infos-en-bretagne-et-en-france-direct-14-09-2020

    Santé publique France ne communique pas le nombre de nouvelles contaminations enregistrées ce vendredi 10 juin, « suite à l’identification d’une anomalie dans le processus de transmission des données en amont ». Le taux d’incidence, lui, n’est pas impacté. Toujours en augmentation, il est ce vendredi 10 juin de 251,59 cas pour 100 000 habitants. 14 028 patients covid sont actuellement hospitalisés, dont 869 en réanimation (7 de moins qu’hier). 39 personnes sont mortes ces dernières 24h en France.

  • Margaret Atwood : « La Cour suprême veut faire appliquer des lois du XVIIe siècle » Le Temps.ch
    https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/margaret-atwood-cour-supreme-veut-faire-appliquer-lois-xviie-siecle

    Le droit à l’avortement est en phase terminale aux Etats-Unis, où la Cour suprême envisage d’abroger l’arrêt qui le décriminalise depuis 1973. La grande écrivaine canadienne avait exploré les risques d’une dictature théocratique américaine dès 1985 dans « La Servante écarlate », son chef-d’œuvre dystopique. Voici sa tribune, d’abord publiée dans « The Atlantic » (1)


    Dessin d’abord paru dans le « Washington Spectator », Etats-Unis. — © Edel Rodriguez

    Au début des années 1980, je m’étais embarquée dans l’écriture d’un roman d’anticipation portant sur un futur dans lequel les Etats-Unis s’étaient désunis. Une partie du pays était désormais une dictature théocratique fondée sur la doctrine religieuse et la jurisprudence de la Nouvelle-Angleterre puritaine au XVIIe siècle.

    J’avais planté le décor dans les environs de l’Université Harvard, une institution réputée pour son libéralisme dans les années 1980, mais dont la raison d’être, trois siècles plus tôt, était de former le clergé du puritanisme.

    Retour vers le passé
    Dans la théocratie imaginaire de Galaad, les femmes n’avaient quasiment aucun droit, au même titre qu’en Nouvelle-Angleterre au XVIIe siècle. Les textes bibliques avaient été triés sur le volet, les passages retenus étaient soumis à une interprétation littérale. Dans la Genèse – en particulier dans la famille de Jacob –, les épouses des patriarches disposaient de femmes réduites en esclavage, appelées « servantes ». Ces épouses pouvaient intimer à leur mari d’avoir des enfants avec les servantes, puis elles déclaraient la progéniture comme étant la leur.

    J’ai fini par mettre un point final à ce roman, que j’ai intitulé La Servante écarlate, mais j’ai plusieurs fois suspendu son écriture car le propos me paraissait trop invraisemblable. Quelle idiote je fais. Les dictatures théocratiques ne sont pas cantonnées au temps jadis : il en existe un certain nombre aujourd’hui sur terre. Qu’est-ce qui épargnera ce sort aux Etats-Unis ?

    Prenons un exemple. Nous sommes en 2022, et un projet de décision de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis a fuité dans la presse le 3 mai : on y lit que l’arrêt Roe v. Wade, jurisprudence en vigueur depuis cinquante ans, serait annulé au motif que l’avortement n’est pas cité dans la Constitution américaine et n’est pas « profondément ancré » dans « notre histoire et notre tradition ». Ce n’est pas faux. La Constitution des Etats-Unis ne mentionne pas la santé reproductive des femmes. A vrai dire, ce document ne fait aucune mention des femmes.

    Les femmes privées de personnalité juridique
    Les femmes ont été délibérément exclues du droit de vote. En 1776, la guerre d’indépendance avait notamment pour slogan « Pas de taxation sans représentation », et un gouvernement ayant l’assentiment des gouvernés était vu d’un bon œil à l’époque, mais rien de tout cela n’était valable pour les femmes. Elles ne pouvaient consentir elles-mêmes à leur représentation ou à leur gouvernement ; toute décision passait par l’intermédiaire de leur père ou époux. Les femmes ne pouvaient pas exprimer leur consentement, pas plus qu’elles ne pouvaient le refuser, car elles étaient privées du droit de vote.

    Cette situation a perduré jusqu’en 1920, année où a été ratifié le dix-neuvième amendement, lequel a suscité une virulente opposition au motif qu’il était contraire à la Constitution dans sa version première. Là encore, ce n’est pas faux.

    Les femmes ont été privées de personnalité juridique dans le droit des Etats-Unis bien plus longtemps qu’elles n’ont eu des droits. Si on commence à revenir sur la jurisprudence constante en s’appuyant sur le raisonnement du juge Samuel Alito [auteur du projet de décision de la Cour suprême divulgué dans la presse], pourquoi ne pas contester le droit de vote des femmes ?

    Notre corps, nous-mêmes
    La santé reproductive est au cœur du tumulte actuel, mais un seul côté de la pièce est visible : le droit de ne pas donner naissance. Cette pièce a un revers : l’Etat peut aussi vous interdire de procréer. L’arrêt Buck v. Bell, rendu en 1927 par la Cour suprême, a autorisé les pouvoirs publics à stériliser des personnes sans leur consentement.

    Cette décision a été invalidée par des affaires ultérieures, et les lois des Etats permettant les campagnes de stérilisation de grande ampleur ont toutes été abrogées, mais l’arrêt Buck v. Bell demeure. Cette forme d’eugénisme était autrefois jugée progressiste, et environ 70 000 stérilisations – d’hommes et de femmes, mais de femmes en majorité – ont eu lieu aux Etats-Unis. On en déduit que la tradition profondément ancrée veut que l’appareil reproductif des femmes n’appartienne pas aux femmes concernées ; il est la seule propriété de l’Etat.

    Je vous vois venir : ce n’est pas une histoire d’organes, mais de bébés ! Ce qui n’est pas sans susciter quelques questionnements. Est-ce qu’un gland est un chêne ? Est-ce qu’un œuf est une poule ? A quel moment l’ovocyte humain fécondé devient-il un être ou une personne à part entière ? Nos traditions – disons celles de la Grèce et de la Rome antiques, celles des premiers chrétiens – sont hésitantes à ce sujet.

    A la conception ? Au rythme cardiaque ? Aux premiers coups de pied ? Pour les plus intraitables des militants anti-IVG actuels, c’est à la conception, soit le moment selon eux où un amas cellulaire se voit doté d’une âme. Cette opinion repose néanmoins sur une conviction religieuse : la croyance en l’âme. Tout le monde ne partage pas cette conviction. Pourtant, tout le monde risque aujourd’hui d’être soumis à des lois rédigées par ces croyants. Ce qui est un péché dans un cadre religieux précis est sur le point d’être érigé en infraction pour tous.

    Une affaire de religion
    Reprenons le premier amendement de la Constitution. « Le Congrès ne fera aucune loi qui touche l’établissement ou interdise le libre exercice d’une religion, ni qui restreigne la liberté de la parole ou de la presse, ou le droit qu’a le peuple de s’assembler paisiblement et d’adresser des pétitions au gouvernement pour la réparation des torts dont il a à se plaindre. » Les auteurs de la Constitution américaine, conscients des guerres de religion meurtrières qui avaient déchiré l’Europe à l’apparition du protestantisme, souhaitaient éviter cet écueil. Il n’y aurait donc aucune religion d’Etat. Personne ne pourrait être empêché par l’Etat de pratiquer le culte de son choix.

    C’était pourtant simple : si vous croyez que l’âme apparaît à la conception, vous devez vous abstenir de tout avortement, car il constitue un péché dans votre religion. Si cela ne fait pas partie de vos convictions, vous ne devez pas – conformément à la Constitution – être contraint par les convictions religieuses d’autrui.

    En revanche, si l’avis du juge Samuel Alito devient en effet la nouvelle jurisprudence constante, alors les Etats-Unis seront bien partis pour instaurer une religion d’Etat. Il y avait une religion officielle dans le Massachusetts au XVIIe siècle : en conséquence, les puritains soumettaient les quakers à la pendaison.

    Les sorcières au bûcher !
    Le texte rédigé par le juge Alito prétend se fonder sur la Constitution des Etats-Unis, mais il repose sur une jurisprudence anglaise du XVIIe siècle, une époque où les croyances en la sorcellerie ont abouti à la mort de nombreuses innocentes.

    Les procès des sorcières de Salem étaient bel et bien des procès – où siégeaient juges et jurés –, mais y était admise la preuve dite « spectrale », c’est-à-dire l’idée qu’une sorcière pouvait commettre ses méfaits grâce à son double possédé – son spectre. Selon ce raisonnement, même si vous étiez profondément endormie (témoins à l’appui), mais que quelqu’un vous accusait de supposées maltraitances contre une vache à des kilomètres de là, vous étiez coupable de sorcellerie. Et il était impossible de prouver le contraire.

    De la même manière, il sera très difficile de réfuter une fausse accusation d’avortement. Une fausse couche ou les déclarations d’un ex-conjoint suffira à vous assimiler à une meurtrière. Les accusations motivées par la vengeance et la malveillance se multiplieront, tout comme les dénonciations pour sorcellerie il y a cinq cents ans.

    Si le juge Alito veut faire appliquer les lois du XVIIe siècle, vous seriez bien avisé d’étudier ce siècle avec attention. Est-ce bien l’époque à laquelle vous voulez vivre ?
    Margaret Atwood

    (1) « I invented Gilead, the Supreme Court is making it real » https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/supreme-court-roe-handmaids-tale-abortion-margaret-atwood/629833 publiée dans The Atlantic (mai 2022) et traduite par Courrier international.

    #Femmes #usa #Théocratie #bible #Constitution_américaine #avortement #procréation #eugénisme #croyances #convictions_religieuses #puritanisme #sorcières

  • Sanidad confirma que los análisis de los siete primeros casos sospechosos de viruela del mono han dado positivo | Sociedad | EL PAÍS
    https://elpais.com/sociedad/2022-05-18/madrid-eleva-a-23-el-numero-de-casos-sospechosos-de-sufrir-viruela-de-los-mo

    La Comunidad de Madrid, por su parte, ha cifrado en 22 el número de pacientes cuya sintomatología hace sospechar que han contraído la enfermedad, además de los siete ya confirmados por PCR. A lo largo de los próximos días está previsto que se conozcan los resultados de las pruebas pendientes.

    Cuatro fuentes hospitalarias consultadas por EL PAÍS elevan a “entre 40 y 50″ los enfermos atendidos en los dos últimos días en los hospitales de la región. Hay 16 pacientes del Hospital Clínico pendientes de la confirmación de resultados, una docena del Doce de Octubre y varios casos en los hospitales Gregorio Marañón, Ramón y Cajal y la Fundación Jiménez Díaz. “Nos llegan informaciones de casos sospechosos en la mayoría de los grandes hospitales de la región”, explica un responsable hospitalario, basándose en los datos compartidos por los canales de comunicación que mantienen los especialistas de dermatología, urgencias, enfermedades infecciosas y microbiología, entre otros.

    • These monkeypox outbreaks are also unique because … well … they’re occurring in the third year of a pandemic, “when the public is primed to be more acutely aware of outbreaks,” Boghuma Kabisen Titanji, a physician at Emory University, told me. “I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing.” When it comes to epidemics, people tend to fight the last war. During the West African Ebola outbreak of 2014, American experts had to quell waves of undue paranoia, which likely contributed to the initial downplaying of the coronavirus. Now, because the U.S. catastrophically underestimated COVID, many Americans are panicking about monkeypox and reflexively distrusting any reassuring official statements. “I don’t think people should be freaking out at this stage,” Carl Bergstrom of the University of Washington told me, “but I don’t trust my own gut feelings anymore, because I’m so sick of all this shit that I tend to be optimistic.”

  • We’re not all Ukrainians now
    https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-war-nato-eu-us-alliance-solidarity
    L’article pointe l’écart entre la retenue relative des dirigeants occidentaux, qui ne donnent pas tout ce qu’elle veut à l’#Ukraine, et leurs discours, dans lesquels ils prétendent s’aligner sans réserve sur les objectifs ukrainiens et présentent la situation comme une guerre entre monde libre et autocratie. Cet écart est dangereux, selon les auteurs, pour plusieurs raisons.

    For one, it attracts domestic calls for escalation, including demands for maximal war aims, from the restoration of Crimea to direct military intervention.

    Secondly, the White House’s rhetoric also undermines its own refusal to comply with Ukraine’s demands for high-risk assistance in the form of no-fly zones, the complete economic shutdown of Russia or actual troop deployments, undercutting its own restraint.

    [...] Crucially, this rhetoric-policy gap could also raise excessive Ukrainian expectations of support. But those insisting the West should give Ukraine whatever it wants ignore that what Ukraine wants partly depends on what the West will give them — or at least what it says it will. And claims of fully aligned interests may fuel Ukrainian dreams of total victory that are probably untenable and only conducive to prolonging war.

    [...] The problem here isn’t helping Ukraine, it’s pretending the help is unconditional.

    [...] The idea that nations can heavily contribute to a war effort without any say in its execution is offensive. Those arming Ukraine may not be risking enough to suit Ukraine, but they aren’t risking nothing — the danger of Russian retaliation remains. And sanctions entail economic pain for those sanctioning as well as the sanctioned.

    • The War in Ukraine Is Getting Complicated, and America Isn’t Ready | THE EDITORIAL BOARD
      https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/19/opinion/america-ukraine-war-support.html

      But as the war continues, Mr. Biden should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster. It is imperative that the Ukrainian government’s decisions be based on a realistic assessment of its means and how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain.

      Confronting this reality may be painful, but it is not appeasement. This is what governments are duty bound to do, not chase after an illusory “win.” Russia will be feeling the pain of isolation and debilitating economic sanctions for years to come, and Mr. Putin will go down in history as a butcher. The challenge now is to shake off the euphoria, stop the taunting and focus on defining and completing the mission.

    • Ukraine’s Way Out
      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/ukraine-war-russia-putin-end/629890

      But Kyiv’s right to fight for complete territorial sovereignty does not make doing so strategically wise. Nor should Ukraine’s remarkable success in repelling Russia’s initial advance be cause for overconfidence about the next phases of the conflict. Indeed, strategic pragmatism warrants a frank conversation between NATO and Ukraine about curbing Kyiv’s ambitions and settling for an outcome that falls short of “victory.”

    • What is America’s end-game for the war in Ukraine?
      https://www.ft.com/content/315346dc-e1bd-485c-865b-979297f3fcf5

      Increasingly diplomats and analysts are debating how far Ukraine will go as the war drags on. America’s promises to leave the final borders up to Ukraine have left some allies uneasy, analysts said.

      Stefanini, Italy’s former ambassador to Nato, expresses concern at the lack of clarity over the eventual objectives. “Does it mean getting back to the pre-February 24 situation? Does it mean rolling back the territorial gains that Russia made in 2014? Does it mean regime change in Moscow?” he asks. “Nothing of that is clear.”

      Charap, of the Rand Institute, said the US and Ukraine’s interests are aligned on the war’s outcome, but that could change in the months ahead.

      “If they decide victory looks like something the US finds to be hugely escalatory, our interests may diverge. But we’re not there yet,” he said.

  • The Imprisoned Egyptian Activist Who Never Stopped Campaigning for His Country’s Future - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2022/05/egyptian-revolution-alaa-abd-el-fattah-review/629862

    Alaa Abd el-Fattah’s writings reveal where the revolution lost steam, and how to rebuild its momentum.

    #prisonniers_politiques #Égypte #nos_alliés

  • Climate Change Is Rewiring the Network of Animal Viruses - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/04/how-climate-change-impacts-pandemics/629699

    For the world’s viruses, this is a time of unprecedented opportunity. An estimated 40,000 viruses lurk in the bodies of mammals, of which a quarter could conceivably infect humans. Most do not, because they have few chances to leap into our bodies. But those chances are growing. Earth’s changing climate is forcing animals to relocate to new habitats, in a bid to track their preferred environmental conditions. Species that have never coexisted will become neighbors, creating thousands of infectious meet-cutes in which viruses can spill over into unfamiliar hosts—and, eventually, into us. Many scientists have argued that climate change will make pandemics more likely, but a groundbreaking new analysis shows that this worrying future is already here, and will be difficult to address. The planetary network of viruses and wildlife “is rewiring itself right now,” Colin Carlson, a global-change biologist at Georgetown University, told me. And “while we thought we understood the rules of the game, again and again, reality sat us down and taught us: That’s not how biology works.”

    In 2019, Carlson and his colleague Greg Albery began creating a massive simulation that maps the past, present, and future ranges of 3,100 mammal species, and predicts the likelihood of viral spillovers if those ranges overlap. The simulation strained a lot of computing power; “every time we turn it on, an angel dies,” Carlson told me. And the results, which have finally been published today, are disturbing. Even under the most optimistic climate scenarios, the coming decades will see roughly 300,000 first encounters between species that normally don’t interact, leading to about 15,000 spillovers wherein viruses enter naive hosts.

    The Anthropocene, an era defined by humanity’s power over Earth, is also an era defined by viruses’ power over us—a Pandemicene. “The moment to stop climate change from increasing viral transmission was 15 years ago,” Carlson said. “We’re in a world that’s 1.2 degrees warmer [than preindustrial levels], and there is no backpedaling. We have to prepare for more pandemics because of it.”

    Southeast Asia will also be especially spillover-prone because it’s home to a wide range of bats. Flight gives bats flexibility, allowing them to react to changing climates more quickly than other mammals, and to carry their viruses farther. And bats in Southeast Asia are highly diverse, and tend to have small ranges that don’t overlap. “You shake that like a snowglobe and you get a lot of first encounters,” Carlson said.

    Such events will also be problematic elsewhere in the world. In Africa, bats are probably the natural reservoirs for Ebola. Thirteen species could potentially carry the virus, and as global warming forces them to disperse, they’ll encounter almost 3,700 new mammal species, leading to almost 100 spillovers. So far, the biggest Ebola outbreaks have occurred in West Africa, but Carlson said that within decades, the disease could easily become a bigger problem for the continent’s eastern side too. “And that’s emblematic of everything,” he told me: Every animal-borne disease will likely change in similarly dramatic ways.

    And spillovers that initially occur between other mammals could someday affect us: The original SARS virus hopped from bats to humans via civets, and HIV reached us from monkeys via chimpanzees and gorillas. For an animal virus to jump into humans, geography, biological compatibility, and other factors must line up in just the right way. Each event is unlikely: Imagine playing Russian roulette using a gun with a million chambers. But as the climate changes, we’re loading more of those chambers with bullets, and pulling the trigger more frequently.

    The revelations are “so large and heavy to behold that even as we were writing them, we didn’t want to,” Carlson said. But despite every attempt that he and Albery made to naysay their own work, the simulation kept spitting out the same results. They confirm that three of our greatest existential threats—climate change, pandemics, and the sixth mass extinction of wildlife—are really intertwined parts of the same mega-problem. To tackle it, “we need atmospheric scientists talking to ecologists talking to microbiologists talking to demographers,” Rachel Baker, whose research at Princeton focuses on climate and disease, told me.

    But pandemics are inherently unpredictable, and no amount of prevention will fully negate their risk. The world must be ready to meet the viruses that slip through the net. That means fortifying public health and health-care systems, strengthening social safety nets, and addressing all the weaknesses of the pre-COVID normal that made the world so vulnerable to the current pandemic and will leave it susceptible to the next. The world, in its desire to move past COVID, is already forgetting the lessons of the recent past, and perhaps assuming that a generation-defining crisis will occur only once a generation. “But no, all of this could happen again tomorrow,” Carlson said. And “if this many viruses are undergoing host jumps this much,” multiple pandemics could strike together.

    #Pandémies #Changement_climatique #Virus #Pandémicène

  • How did this many deaths become normal? | Ed Yong - 8 mars 2022
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/03/covid-us-death-rate/626972

    America is accepting not only a threshold of death but also a gradient of death. Elderly people over the age of 75 are 140 times more likely to die than people in their 20s. Among vaccinated people, those who are immunocompromised account for a disproportionate share of severe illness and death. Unvaccinated people are 53 times more likely to die of #COVID than vaccinated and boosted people; they’re also more likely to be uninsured, have lower incomes and less education, and face eviction risk and food insecurity. Working-class people were five times more likely to die from COVID than college graduates in 2020, and in California, essential workers continued dying at disproportionately high rates even after vaccines became widely available. Within every social class and educational tier, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people died at higher rates than white people. If all adults had died at the same rates as college-educated white people, 71 percent fewer people of color would have perished. People of color also died at younger ages: In its first year, COVID erased 14 years of progress in narrowing the life-expectancy gap between Black and white Americans. Because death fell inequitably, so did grief: Black children were twice as likely to have lost a parent to COVID than white ones, and Indigenous children, five times as likely. Older, sicker, poorer, Blacker or browner, the people killed by COVID were treated as marginally in death as they were in life. Accepting their losses comes easily to “a society that places a hierarchy on the value of human life, which is absolutely what America is built on,” Debra Furr-Holden, an epidemiologist at the Michigan State University, told me.

    These recent trends oozed from older ones. Well before COVID, nursing homes were understaffed, disabled people were neglected, and low-income people were disconnected from health care. The U.S. also had a chronically underfunded public-health system that struggled to slow the virus’s spread; packed and poorly managed “epidemic engines” such as prisons that allowed it to run rampant; an inefficient health-care system that tens of millions of Americans could not easily access and that was inundated by waves of sick patients; and a shredded social safety net that left millions of essential workers with little choice but to risk infection for income. Generations of racist policies widened the mortality gap between Black and white Americans to canyon size: Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota, calculated that white mortality during COVID was still substantially lower than Black mortality in the pre-pandemic years. In that light, the normalizing of COVID deaths is unsurprising. “When deaths happen to people who are already not valued in a million other ways, it’s easier to not value their lives in this additional way,” Wrigley-Field told me.

  • A New History of World War II
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/05/world-war-ii-empire-colonialism/629371

    This fact wasn’t incidental; empire was central to the causes and course of the war. Yet the colonial dimensions of World War II aren’t usually stressed. The most popular books and films present it as Churchill did, as a dramatic confrontation between liberty-loving nations and merciless tyrants. In the United States, it’s remembered still as the “good war,” the vanquishing of evil by the Greatest Generation.

    That understanding works—sort of—when war stories focus on Adolf Hitler’s invasions of sovereign states in Europe. It falters, however, when they center on the Pacific. There, the Japanese targeted colonies, seizing them under the banner of “Asia for the Asiatics.” The Allies beat Japan back, but only to return Burma to the British and Indonesia to the Dutch—Asia for the Europeans.

    The Pacific clash over colonies reveals a greater truth about the Second World War. Or such is the contention of Richard Overy, one of the conflict’s most distinguished historians. After writing some 20 books about the war, focused mainly on Europe, Overy has widened his scope. His new book, Blood and Ruins: The Last Imperial War, 1931–1945, 1,000 pages long, refuses to treat the Pacific as “an appendix,” as histories often do. Rather, it sees World War II as a truly “global event.”

    In that light, one thing becomes clear. Whatever else the Second World War was about, it was, on both sides, a war for empire.

  • Why America Became Numb to COVID Deaths, by Ed Yong - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/03/covid-us-death-rate/626972

    While epidemics flow downward into society’s cracks, medical interventions rise upward into its peaks. New cures, vaccines, and diagnostics first go to people with power, wealth, education, and connections, who then move on; this explains why health inequities so stubbornly persist across the decades even as health problems change. AIDS activism, for example, lost steam and resources once richer, white Americans had access to effective antiretroviral drugs, Steven Thrasher told me, leaving poorer Black communities with high rates of infection. “It’s always a real danger that things get worse once the people with the most political clout are okay,” Thrasher said. Similarly, pundits who got vaccinated against COVID quickly started arguing against overcaution and (inaccurately) predicting the pandemic’s imminent end. The government did too, framing the crisis as solely a matter of personal choice, even as it failed to make rapid tests, high-quality masks, antibody cocktails, and vaccines accessible to the poorest groups. The CDC’s latest guidelines continue that trend, as my colleague Katherine J. Wu has argued. Globally, the richer north is moving on while the poorer south is still vulnerable and significantly unvaccinated. All of this “shifts the burden to the very groups experiencing mass deaths to protect themselves, while absolving leaders from creating the conditions that would make those groups safe,” Courtney Boen, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, told me. “It’s a lot easier to say that we have to learn to live with COVID if you’re not personally experiencing the ongoing loss of your family members.”

  • COVID-19 isn’t just a cold

    This thread is long, and hard to read - not just because of the technical language, but because “it’s just a cold,” “the vaccine protects me,” and “at least our children are safe” are comforting fairy tales.

    I wish they were true.

    This virus is like measles and polio: a virus with long-term impact.

    Even a “mild” case in a vaccinated individual can lead to long-term issues which cause a measurable uptick in all-cause mortality in the first 6 months, and get progressively worse with time.

    SARS-CoV-2 is a systemic disease which has multiple avenues to induce long-term impairment, attacking the brain, heart, lungs, blood, testes, colon, liver, and lymph nodes, causing persistent symptoms in more than half of patients by six months out.

    The CoVHORT study, limited to non-hospitalized patients in Arizona - “mild” cases - found a 68% prevalence of 1 or more Covid symptom after 30 days, rising to 77% after 60 days. (We will explore an explanation later).

    https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254347

    To prevent panic, @CDCgov has been using the term “mild” to describe any case of COVID-19 which does not require hospitalization.

    #LongCOVID, however, is anything but “mild”, as the replies to @ahandvanish’s thread make heartbreakingly clear.

    https://twitter.com/ahandvanish/status/1423017721822949376

    A University of Washington study found that 30% of Covid patients had reduced Health Related Quality of Life, with 8% of the patients limited in routine daily activities.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776560

    These patients are struggling with real physical issues.

    This Yale study demonstrated reduced aerobic capacity, oxygen extraction. and ventilatory efficiency in “mild” COVID patients even after recovery from their acute infection.

    https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(21)03635-7/abstract

    It’s also a vascular disease. A Columbia study found “significantly altered lipid metabolism” during acute disease, which “suggests a significant impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on red blood cell structural membrane homeostasis.”

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00606

    Oregon Health & Science University found that “symptomatic or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with increased risk of [fatal] cardiovascular outcomes and has causal effect on all-cause mortality.”

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268448v1

    Let’s review: SARS-CoV-2 causes an increase in mortality and reduced aerobic capacity even after asymptomatic cases, and remains in the body months after the initial infection.

    No, it’s not “just a cold.”

    But we’re just getting started. It gets worse. Way worse.

    The virus appears to be able to cross the blood-brain barrier and cause significant neurological damage.

    The ability of the spike protein to cross the blood-brain barrier was demonstrated in mice at the University of Washington.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33328624

    A joint study by Stanford and Germany’s Saarland University found inflammation in the brain, and “show[ed] that peripheral T cells infiltrate the parenchyma.”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03710-0

    For context, the parenchyma is the functional tissue of the brain - your neurons and glial cells. It isn’t normally where T cells are:

    “In the brain of healthy individuals, T cells are only present sporadically in the parenchyma.”

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751344

    The Stanford study also discovered microglia and astrocytes which displayed “features .. that have previously been reported in human neurodegenerative disease.”

    Post-mortem neuropathology in Hamburg, Germany found “Infiltration by cytotoxic T lymphocytes .. in the brainstem and cerebellum, [with] meningeal cytotoxic T lymphocyte infiltration seen in 79% [of] patients.”

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474442220303082#

    An autopsy of a 14-month-old at Brazil’s Federal University of Rio de Janeiro found that “The brain exhibited severe atrophy and neuronal loss.”

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00038-7/abstract

    The UK Biobank COVID-19 re-imaging study compared before and after images of “mild” cases, and found “pronounced reduction in grey matter” and an “increase of diffusion indices, a marker of tissue damage” in specific regions of the brain.

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.11.21258690v3

    That seems to explain why there is evidence of persistent cognitive deficits in people who have recovered from SARS-CoV2 infection in Great Britain.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext

    Also worrisome are syncytia, where an infected cell extrudes its own spike protein and takes over its neighbors, fusing together to create a large multi-nucleus cell.

    Delta’s particular aptitude for this may partly explain its severity.

    https://www.news-medical.net/news/20211006/SARS-CoV-2-emerging-variants-display-enhanced-syncytia-formation.aspx

    And, yes, syncytia formation can happen in neurons. For our visual learners, here is video of syncytia and apoptosis (cell death) in a (bat) brain:

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1429604323047133185

    Luckily, the University of Glasgow found that “Whilst Delta is optimised for fusion at the cell surface, Omicron .. achieves entry through endosomal fusion. This switch .. offers [an] explanation for [its] reduced syncytia formation.”

    https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_829360_smxx.pdf

    If you’re interested in further understanding the host of neurological symptoms and the mechanisms underlying them, this Nature article is an excellent primer:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01693-6

    Let’s review: SARS-CoV-2 can cross the blood-brain barrier, and even “mild” or asymptomatic cases can cause loss of neurons and persistent cognitive defects?

    That doesn’t sound “mild” to me; I like my brain.

    But it keeps getting worse.

    The brain isn’t the only organ affected: Testicular pathology has found evidence of “SARS-Cov-2 antigen in Leydig cells, Sertoli cells, spermatogonia, and fibroblasts” in post-morten examination.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13073

    A Duke pathology study in Singapore “detected SARS-CoV-2 .. in the colon, appendix, ileum, haemorrhoid, liver, gallbladder and lymph nodes .. suggesting widespread multiorgan involvement of the viral infection.”

    https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/early/2021/06/13/gutjnl-2021-324280.full.pdf#page1

    The same study found “evidence of residual virus in .. tissues during the convalescent phase, up to 6 months after recovery, in a non-postmortem setting,” suggesting that “a negative swab result might not necessarily indicate complete viral clearance from the body.”

    It also causes microclots: “Fibrin(ogen) amyloid microclots and platelet hyperactivation [were] observed in [Long COVID] patients,” in this work by Stellenbosch University of South Africa, which also explored potential treatments.

    https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1205453/v1

    Let’s review - SARS-CoV2 attacks our veins, blood, heart, brain, testes, colon, appendix, liver, gallbladder and lymph nodes?

    No, it’s not “just a respiratory virus”.

    Not even close.

    There are also immunology implications:

    Johns Hopkins’ @fitterhappierAJ found that “CD95-mediated [T cell] differentiation and death may be advancing T cells to greater effector acquisition, fewer numbers, and immune dysregulation.”

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.600405/full

    This Chinese military study of the initial Wuhan outbreak concluded that “T cell counts are reduced significantly in COVID-19 patients, and the surviving T cells appear functionally exhausted.”

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2020.00827/full

    The study authors went on to warn, “Non-ICU patients with total T cells counts lower than 800/μL may still require urgent intervention, even in the immediate absence of more severe symptoms due to a high risk for further deterioration in condition.”

    Those warnings have since been proven by discovery of autoimmune features.

    This study of 177 Los Angeles healthcare workers found that all had persistent self-attacking antibodies at least 6 months after infection, regardless of illness severity.

    https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-021-03184-8

    In the words of T-cell immunologist Dr. Leonardi (@fitterhappierAJ)

    https://twitter.com/fitterhappierAJ/status/1475227891034210314

    This Kaiser Permanente S.California study found that, although natural immunity provided substantial protection against reinfection, “Hospitalization was more common at suspected reinfection (11.4%) than initial infection (5.4%).”

    https://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198-743X(21)00422-5/abstract

    In fact, remember those cytokine storms? It turns out that even that even severe COVID-19 may not be a viral pneumonia, but an autoimmune attack of the lung.

    https://twitter.com/DaveLeeERMD/status/1413816137570205697

    Let’s review - it’s autoimmune: SARS-CoV2 convinces our body to attack itself.

    That might explain why the Arizona study saw more symptoms after 60 days than at 30 days.

    It also means “natural immunity” isn’t something to count on.

    But if you’re counting on vaccination to feel safe, there’s even more bad news.

    A study of Israel healthcare workers found that “Most breakthrough cases were mild or asymptomatic, although 19% had persistent symptoms (>6 weeks).”

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2109072

    Perhaps the most terrifying study is from Oxford University, which examined the effects of vaccination on long COVID symptoms, because not only did it find that vaccination does not protect against Long Covid, but that Long Covid symptoms become more likely over time:

    In the words of the study authors, “vaccination does not appear to be protective against .. long-COVID features, arrhythmia, joint pain, type 2 diabetes, liver disease, sleep disorders, and mood and anxiety disorders."

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265508v3

    “The narrow confidence intervals rule out the possibility that these negative findings are merely a result of lack of statistical power. The inclusion of death in a composite endpoint with these outcomes rules out survivorship bias as an explanation.”

    That finding contradicts the findings from the UK Zoe app study, which found that “the odds of having symptoms for 28 days or more after post-vaccination infection were approximately halved by having two vaccine doses.”

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00460-6/fulltext

    However, the structural limitations of the Zoe study - discussed in detail by @dgurdasani1 in the linked thread - may explain why it is particularly susceptible to bias against detecting a progressive degenerative condition.

    https://twitter.com/dgurdasani1/status/1422802883632893952

    Let’s review: we’ve now shown that vaccination appears to offer no protection against the long-term autoimmune effects of COVID - which we know causes T-cells to attack the lungs, and can cause T-cells to enter the brain.

    Why are we letting this run wild?!

    You may think, at least our children are safe.

    They are not.

    The CDC is tracking incidence of a life-threatening multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children following an acute COVID-19 infection, with 5,973 cases as of November 30, 2021.

    https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#mis-national-surveillance

    Children also suffer from Long Covid.

    “More than half [of pediatric patients] reported at least one persisting symptom even 120 days [after] COVID-19, with 42.6% impaired by these symptoms during daily activities.”

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.23.21250375v1

    Focusing exclusively on pediatric deaths is vastly underselling the danger to children.

    Anybody telling you that SARS-CoV-2 is “just a cold” or “safe for children” is lying to you. They are ignoring the massive body of research that indicates that it is anything but.

    Since our vaccines don’t stop transmission, and don’t appear to stop long-term illness, a “vaccination only” strategy is not going to be sufficient to prevent mass disability.

    This isn’t something we want to expose our kids to.

    Let’s review: even for children and vaccinated people, a “mild” case of COVID causes symptoms that point to long-term autoimmune issues, potentially causing our own body to attack our brains, hearts, and lungs.

    Scared? Good.

    Now we’re ready to get to work.

    “This is the virus most Americans don’t know. We were born into a world where a virus was a thing you got over in a few weeks.” — @sgeekfemale, to whom I owe a “thank you” for her editing assistance on this thread.

    The viruses they know in Kolkota, Kinshasa, and Wuhan are different: dangerous, lethal beasts.

    Since 2020, the field has been leveled. Willing or no, we’ve rejoined the rest of the world. We are, all of us, vulnerable in the face of an unfamiliar threat.

    The first step is acknowledging the threat.

    That means acknowledging that our response has been woefully inadequate, and that is going to be uncomfortable.

    The thought that we could have prevented this, but didn’t, will feel unconscionable to some.

    The knowledge that we could start preventing this today, but haven’t, is unconscionable to me.

    https://twitter.com/IanRicksecker/status/1426584062827712512

    It’s time to quit pretending “it’s just a cold,” or that there is some magical law of viruses that will make it evolve to an acceptable level.

    There’s no such law of evolution, just wishful thinking, easily disproven by:

    Ebola. Smallpox. Marburg. Polio. Malaria.

    There are things we can do to reduce our individual risk, immediately.

    That starts with wearing a good mask - an N95 or better - and choosing to avoid things like indoor dining and capacity-crowd stadiums.

    https://twitter.com/LazarusLong13/status/1440398111445188618

    This isn’t a choice of “individual freedom” vs “public health”. It isn’t “authoritarian” to ask people to change their behavior in order to save lives.

    https://www.thehastingscenter.org/individual-freedom-or-public-health-a-false-choice-in-the-covid-e

    As Arnold @Schwarzenegger argued so convincingly in @TheAtlantic, it is our patriotic duty:

    “Generations of Americans made incredible sacrifices, and we’re going to throw fits about putting a mask over our mouth and nose?”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/schwarzenegger-schmuck-mask-vaccines/619746

    “Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a little bit of temporary security deserve neither!”

    What is the essential liberty here?

    It is the liberty to be able to breathe clean air, to live our lives without infecting our families and risking disability.

    To get there, we need to listen to our epidemiologists and public health experts - the ones who have been trying to tell us this since the beginning:

    https://twitter.com/EpiEllie/status/1444088804961304581

    It is time — long past time — to give up on the lazy fantasy that we can let it become “endemic” and “uncontrolled” because it inconveniences us, because it is killing our political opponents, or because the virus will magically evolve to some “mild” state.

    It is time — long past time — to begin controlling this virus.

    It’s possible: Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea have done it.

    It saves lives:

    It’s even good for the economy:

    “Globally, economic contraction and growth closely mirror increases and decreases in COVID-19 cases... Public health strategies that reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission also safeguard the economy.”

    https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-021-06357-4

    It’s time.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1478611650760437765.html

    sur twitter :
    https://twitter.com/IanRicksecker/status/1478611650760437765

    #long-covid #covid-19 #coronavirus #covid_long #long_covid #séquelles #post-covid

  • La primauté absurde de l’automobile
    http://carfree.fr/index.php/2021/12/14/la-primaute-absurde-de-lautomobile

    Compte tenu du nombre phénoménal de décès, de la #pollution galopante et des coûts exorbitants liés à l’automobile, il n’y a pas de meilleur mot pour caractériser la domination de Lire la suite...

    #Destruction_de_la_planète #Fin_de_l'automobile #Insécurité_routière #Pollution_automobile #Réchauffement_climatique #climat #critique #culture #énergie #histoire #mort #santé #société #usa

  • Why Health-Care Workers Are Quitting in Droves, by Ed Yong - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/11/the-mass-exodus-of-americas-health-care-workers/620713

    Health-care workers aren’t quitting because they can’t handle their jobs. They’re quitting because they can’t handle being unable to do their jobs. Even before COVID-19, many of them struggled to bridge the gap between the noble ideals of their profession and the realities of its business. The pandemic simply pushed them past the limits of that compromise.

  • What Will Journalists Do With France’s Trump?

    By over-indexing on coverage of the far-right pundit Éric Zemmour, the media risk amplifying him.

    By Yasmeen Serhan - October 27, 2021- The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/10/france-trump-eric-zemmour/620484

    Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: A television star eyes a presidential run as an outsider ready to take on the political establishment. Unlike his competitors, he doesn’t shy away from religious or racial provocation, nor does he hide his penchant for conspiracies. He is a vocal opponent of immigration, political correctness, and feminism. To his supporters, he is a familiar face who isn’t afraid to “tell it like it is.” To detractors, he’s an inflammatory populist set on dividing the country. The media’s wall-to-wall coverage makes him an inescapable presence.

    This isn’t Donald Trump, though it might be France’s version of him. Éric Zemmour, a far-right pundit who has gained ground in recent polls ahead of the country’s presidential election next year, has yet to descend from his proverbial golden escalator to announce his candidacy. But the overwhelming coverage of him in the French media, as well as his increasing presence in the international press, suggests that it’s only a matter of time before he does.

    That Zemmour has managed to attract outsize attention relative to the rest of France’s presidential hopefuls is a testament to his ability to remain provocative—a skill that he has honed over the course of his career. Like Trump, he has vexed his way onto front pages and prime-time news broadcasts simply by being the most outrageous voice in the room. The goal, it would appear, is to drum up enough momentum to bolster his anticipated candidacy. And so far, the French press has proved happy to oblige.

    The media have been here before. Although the American media did not create Trump (like Zemmour, he was a household name long before he was ever a candidate), they did grant him a disproportionate level of coverage, bestowing upon him more attention and legitimacy than they’ve given any of his competitors. With six months left until election day (still a long way away, by French standards), France’s contest has scarcely begun. Yet by over-indexing on a single candidate—or, in Zemmour’s case, a potential candidate—French journalists look doomed to repeat the mistakes of their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic. (...)

  • Au nom du père - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zZRFJ1oXHA

    Sur la transmission du nom de famille

    #inertie #patronyme

    L’article du philosophe William MacAskill évoqué dans la vidéo : https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/men-should-consider-changing-their-last-names-when-they-get-married/273718

    Un article de la sociologue Virginie Descoutures sur le nom des femmes et sa transmission : https://www.cairn.info/journal-mouvements-2015-2-page-43.htm

    Les statistiques de noms donnés aux enfants en France pour 2014 : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1379722

    Et la même chose pour 2017 : https://www.ined.fr/fr/tout-savoir-population/memos-demo/focus/double-noms

    Par curiosité, j’ai cherché des données sur la transmission du nom du père au Royaume-Uni et je n’ai pas réussi à en trouver. Si vous en trouvez (ou si vous trouvez pour d’autres pays ou pour d’autres années en France, ce sera toujours intéressant), envoyez-moi le lien et j’ajouterai ça ici.

    Sommaire

    0:00 - Intro. Un point aveugle moral
    2:59 - Une norme hégémonique
    4:27 - Que dit la loi ? Égalité formelle et non réelle
    6:58 - Le poids du statu quo
    9:05 - Quelle norme alternative ?
    11:05 - Le cas du Royaume-Uni et de Will MacAskill
    12:53 - La norme actuelle satisfait-elle le principe de tort ?
    14:49 - Conclusion. Quel avenir ?

    Ah et n’oublions pas la vidéo drôlatique sur les noms dans les RPG : https://youtu.be/gzBZFArR4mc

  • WE’RE ALREADY BARRELING TOWARD THE NEXT PANDEMIC - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/america-prepared-next-pandemic/620238

    America’s frustrating inability to learn from the recent past shouldn’t be surprising to anyone familiar with the history of public health.

    Inability ou unwillingness?

    During the pandemic, many of the public-health experts who appeared in news reports hailed from wealthy coastal universities, creating a perception of the field as well funded and elite. That perception is false. In the early 1930s, the U.S. was spending just 3.3 cents of every medical dollar on public health, and much of the rest on hospitals, medicines, and private health care. And despite a 90-year span that saw the creation of the CDC, the rise and fall of polio, the emergence of HIV, and relentless calls for more funding, that figure recently stood at … 2.5 cents. Every attempt to boost it eventually receded, and every investment saw an equal and opposite disinvestment. A preparedness fund that was created in 2002 has lost half its budget, accounting for inflation.

    #santé_publique #états-unis

  • Waning Immunity Is Not a Crisis, Right Now - The Atlantic
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/09/waning-immunity-not-crisis-right-now/619965

    Doser les #anticorps chez les vaccinés (ou anciens infectés) en dehors d’une période de contact avec le virus donne un faux aperçu du statut immunitaire :

    Checking someone’s #SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels when there’s no virus around can be a bit deceptive, […]. In the absence of a threat, immune cells are quiescent. But the capacity for protection remains intact: When new invaders arrive, they’ll reawaken our defenses. That’s why post-vaccine infections, when they do happen, tend to be milder, shorter, and less likely to spread to other people. When the new threat resolves, levels of antibodies and active immune cells decrease again. “You could call that ‘waning,’” Pepper, of the University of Washington, told me. “But that’s just how it works.”

    Mais il arrive un moment où l’immunité finit quand même par disparaître :

    Immune memories don’t last forever. Eventually, even the grizzled B and T cells in the body’s reserves might permanently retire. That’s when protection against disease and death could start to take a tumble, and when experts start to get worried.

    Pour certains experts il faudrait multiplier les rappels de #vaccins pour empêcher cet épuisement :

    Some officials, including CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, have suggested that upticks in post-vaccine coronavirus infections are a sign of what’s to come, and that giving people extra shots could be a way to jog the immune system’s memory before it fades away.

    The same rationale applies to many multi-dose vaccines: The first shot introduces the body to the notion of a threat; the ones that follow clinch the concept that the danger is real and worth taking seriously. A triple-jab regimen is already built into several well-established vaccines, including the ones that block HPV and hepatitis B; others require four or five inoculations before they take.

    Mais, pour la plupart des experts et pour différentes raisons, cela semble incertain sinon douteux pour le sars-cov2 :

    But according to most of the experts I spoke with for this story, the immunological argument for a COVID-19 booster this early is shaky at best.

    To start with, the recent numbers on vaccine effectiveness aren’t really that alarming. Vaccinated people are indeed getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 more frequently than they were a few months ago. But these breakthroughs remain fairly uncommon. Recent reports from the CDC show that the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines were blocking infection at rates of up to about 90 percent in the spring, when the vaccines had barely begun their rollout en masse; now those stats are hovering around the 60s and 70s, still a remarkable feat. (That doesn’t mean that 30 to 40 percent of vaccinated people are getting infected; rather, immunized people are 60 to 70 percent less likely than unimmunized people to be infected if they’re exposed.) Numbers from other studies look to be in a similar ballpark. And these stats might even undersell the vaccines’ benefits: Many “infections” are found simply through the detection of viral genetic material—with no guarantee that this material is active, infectious, or anything more than the carnage left behind from a victorious immune attack.

    The outlook is even better when you consider symptomatic cases of post-vaccine COVID-19. Early reports, including Moderna’s and Pfizer’s original study estimates, put the vaccines’ efficacy against symptomatic illness in the range of 90 to 95 percent. More recent studies now document rates in the 80s, even when facing off against Delta—a variant for which the vaccines weren’t originally formulated.

    Certaines constatations en faveur d’une multiplication des rappels seraient biaisées :

    Some reports from Israel appear to paint a more dire portrait: A few preliminary numbers released by the country’s Ministry of Health suggested that vaccine effectiveness against both infection and symptomatic disease had dipped to about 40 percent. But Çevik, of the University of St. Andrews, told me that these and other data reporting heftier declines are messy and might actually overestimate the problem. Across countries, early vaccine recipients tended to be older, in slightly worse health, and in higher-risk professions than those who got injected later on. That alone could make the protection that they got seem less impressive in comparison. Also, when initial effectiveness numbers were calculated, people were adhering more to physical distancing and masks. Measured these days, amid more lax behavior, risk of infection would rise. And as more of the unvaccinated have been infected, their collective immunity has grown, making them, too, less susceptible to the virus—which could make the effectiveness of vaccines look lower.

    Il faut distinguer #protection contre l’infection de protection contre l’hospitalisation et la mort ;

    “The point isn’t to protect you from getting even a tiny amount of virus in your body,” she said. We’re not out to eradicate positive test results: “That’s not what vaccines do.”

    Si l’utilité de la multiplication des rappels est incontestable dans certains cas… :

    As for boosters, the pros and cons will vary by context. For people who never responded well to their first vaccines, including people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised, additional shots will be very important, Omer said. Their third jabs don’t provide an extraneous “boost” so much as they help complete the original inoculation schedule.

    … cette utilité est incertaine dans les autres cas :

    For the rest of us, though, the perks are harder to visualize. In someone with a fully functional immune system whose defenses were already substantially shored up by their first shots, more doses would probably increase antibody production. That, in turn, could further cut down on infection and transmission, Gommerman told me. Very early data hint that this may be happening in Israel, which is already boosting widely. But it’s not clear how long that preventive bump would last . Ellebedy, of Washington University in St. Louis, said boosters would have “real gain” only if they expanded on the body’s capacity to manufacture antibodies long term, instead of just fueling a temporary boom-and-bust . It’s especially unclear whether that would happen with yet another injection of the original vaccine recipe, delivered to the arm—as opposed to, say, a nasal spray with Delta-specific ingredients.

    En conclusion, en l’état actuel de la pandémie et des connaissances, la multiplication non sélective des rappels se ramène à verser de l’eau dans un verre déjà bien rempli… :

    Right now, some forms of vaccine effectiveness are slipping, but the most important ones aren’t. Unless that changes, widespread boosters in already vaccinated countries are likely to provide diminishing returns, like topping off a drink that’s already on the verge of spilling over.

    … et pire encore à favoriser l’émergence de nouveaux variants en privant les pays pauvres de lots de vaccins :

    In the meantime, billions around the globe have yet to take a sip at all.

    #immunité