Buchanan: For What Will We Go To War With China?

Buchanan: For What Will We Go To War With China?

Authored by Pat Buchanan,

In his final state of the nation speech Monday, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte defended his refusal to confront China over Beijing’s seizure and fortification of his country’s islets in the South China Sea.

“It will be a massacre if I go and fight a war now,” said Duterte.

“We are not yet a competent and able enemy of the other side.”

Duterte is a realist.

He will not challenge China to retrieve his lost territories, as his country would be crushed.

But Duterte has a hole card: a U.S. guarantee to fight China, should he stumble into war with China.

Consider. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken assured Manila we would invoke the U.S.-Philippines mutual security pact in the event of Chinese military action against Philippine assets.

“We also reaffirm,” said Blinken, “that an armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the South China Sea would invoke U.S. mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.”

Is this an American war guarantee to fight the People’s Republic of China, if the Philippines engage a Chinese warship over one of a disputed half-dozen rocks and reefs in the South China Sea? So it would appear.

Why are we threatening this?

Is who controls Mischief Reef or Scarborough Shoal a matter of such vital U.S. interest as to justify war between us and China?

Tuesday, in Singapore, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reaffirmed the American commitment to go to war on behalf of the Philippines, should Manila attempt, militarily, to retrieve its stolen property.

Said Austin:

“Beijing’s claim to the vast majority of the South China Sea has no basis in international law. … We remain committed to the treaty obligations that we have to Japan in the Senkaku Islands and to the Philippines in the South China Sea.”

Austin went on:

“Beijing’s unwillingness to … respect the rule of law isn’t just occurring on the water. We have also seen aggression against India … destabilizing military activity and other forms of coercion against the people of Taiwan … and genocide and crimes against humanity against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang.”

The Defense secretary is publicly accusing China of crimes against its Uyghur population in Xinjiang comparable to those for which the Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg.

Austin has also informed Beijing, yet again, that the U.S. is obligated by a 70-year-old treaty to go to war to defend Japan’s claims to the Senkakus, half a dozen rocks Tokyo now occupies and Beijing claims historically belong to China.

The secretary also introduced the matter of Taiwan, with which President Jimmy Carter broke relations and let lapse our mutual security treaty in 1979.

There remains, however, ambiguity on what the U.S. is prepared to do if China moves on Taiwan. Would we fight China for Taiwan’s independence, an island President Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger said in 1972 was “part of China”?

And if China ignores our protests of its “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” against the Uyghurs, and of its human rights violations in Tibet, and of its crushing of democracy in Hong Kong, what are we prepared to do?

Sanctions? A decoupling of our economies? Confrontation? War?

This is not an argument for threatening war, but for an avoidance of war by providing greater clarity and certitude as to what the U.S. response will be if China ignores our protests and remains on its present course.

Some of us can still recall how President Dwight Eisenhower refused to intervene when Nikita Khrushchev ordered Russian tanks into Budapest to drown the 1956 Hungarian revolution in blood. Instead, we welcomed Hungarian refugees.

When the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, President John F. Kennedy called up the reserves and went to Berlin to make a famous speech, but did nothing.

“Less profile, more courage!” was the response of Cold War hawks.

But Kennedy was saying, as Eisenhower had said by his inaction in Hungary, that America does not go to war with a great nuclear power such as the Soviet Union over the right of East Germans to flee to West Berlin.

Which brings us back to Taiwan.

In the Shanghai Communique signed by Nixon, Taiwan was conceded to be a “part of China.” Are we now going to fight a war to prevent Beijing from bringing the island home to the “embrace of the motherland”?

And if we are prepared to fight, Beijing should not be left in the dark. China ought to know the risks it would be taking.

Cuba is an island, across the Florida Strait, with historic ties to the United States. Taiwan is an island 7,000 miles away, on the other side of the Pacific.

This month, Cubans rose up against the 62-year-old Communist regime fastened upon them by Fidel and Raul Castro.

By what yardstick would we threaten war for the independence of Taiwan but continue to tolerate 60 years of totalitarian repression in Cuba, 90 miles away?

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 21:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2VlUIFo Tyler Durden

First Hong Konger Jailed Under Freedom-Crushing National Security Law Gets 9 Years

First Hong Konger Jailed Under Freedom-Crushing National Security Law Gets 9 Years

Tong Ying-kit, the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrator who was convicted earlier this week for riding his motorbike into a crowd of Hong Kong police while carrying the Hong Kong liberation flag, has just been sentenced to nine years in prison, the first

Tong was arrested in July 2020, and he is the first of the more than 100 people arrested for their involvement in the demonstrations (which, at their peak, brought 2.2MM Hong Kongers out into the streets). According to the  BBC, the hefty sentence “set the tone for how future cases might be interpreted,” according to BBC.

The arrests began after Beijing imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong, using a loophole in the Basic Law, the quasi-constitution that governs (or rather, once governed) the former British colony.

Others who are awaiting their own trials include Joshua Wong, the former student activist who achieved international reknown for his leadership of an earlier wave of pro-democracy protests in 2014, and publisher Jimmy Lai.

Tong was officially convicted on seccession charges because of the slogan on his liberate Hong Kong flag, and terrorism charges due to his “deliberate challenge against the police”. Much of Tong’s 15-day trial focused on the meaning of “Liberate Hong Kong revolution in our times,” the slogan written on Tong’s flag. The prosecution argued that the slogan calls for Hong Kong’s independence, which is explicitly illegal under the new national security law.

In the end, the judge agreed tht the phrase might “insice others to commmit seccession” and ruled that Tong was guilty.

Human rights lawyers immediately denounced the sentence as inhumane and “unreasonably long”.

“The casualty here is freedom of expression,” said human rights lawyer ark Daly to the BBC.

However, one Hong Kong lawyer explained that the sentence is well within the guidelines of the new national security law, which carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Whether any of the remaining activists will receive even harsher sentences of course remains to be seen. But this is hardly an encouraging sign. The decision even reportedly added to the headwings weighing on US stock futures Friday morning, as President Biden has sanctioned Chinese officials over Hong Kong. It’s certainly possible that the UK or US might at least directly denounce the sentence, further straining relations with Beijing.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 20:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ieZ8qF Tyler Durden

When Society Collapses, Will The US Be One Of The Best Places To Be Located?

When Society Collapses, Will The US Be One Of The Best Places To Be Located?

Authored by Michael Snyder via TheMostImportantNews.com,

On some level, we all know that it is just a matter of time before our society implodes.  When that day finally arrives, where will you want to be living?  I know that most of you have thought about this at some point.  Even if we don’t admit it to others, most of us have spent at least a little bit of time thinking about worst case scenarios.  Our world is getting a little bit crazier with each passing day, and that was definitely true today.  We are cruising down a highway that doesn’t lead anywhere good, and it won’t be too long before the wheels start coming off.  When the music finally stops and everyone is scrambling to find a chair, where will you be located?

Earlier today, I was surprised to learn that a scientific study was recently conducted to determine the best place to live during a global societal collapse.

According to that study, the best place to live when our world goes completely haywire will be New Zealand

New Zealand, Iceland, the UK, Tasmania and Ireland are the places best suited to survive a global collapse of society, according to a study.

In recent years, New Zealand has become extremely popular with the elite.  Many wealthy individuals have gobbled up properties in prime locations in anticipation of what is coming.

I used to recommend New Zealand too, but after what I have witnessed during this pandemic I can no longer do that.  The top politicians in New Zealand have shown that they are authoritarian control freaks, and at this point I am urging everyone to avoid the country.

One thing that you will notice about the top five names on the list is that they are all islands.  Having the natural protection of the ocean is definitely a desirable thing, but being close to shore also makes you vulnerable to tsunamis and rising sea levels.

Of course no place is perfect.  Wherever you live, there are going to be certain risks.

The researchers that conducted this study said that a number of different factors were used to come up with the final results…

To assess which nations would be most resilient to such a collapse, countries were ranked according to their ability to grow food for their population, protect their borders from unwanted mass migration, and maintain an electrical grid and some manufacturing ability. Islands in temperate regions and mostly with low population densities came out on top.

When they were asked about the United States, the researchers said that the inability of the U.S. to prevent mass migration pushes it just out of the top 5…

That’s because its giant land borders make it vulnerable to migration from people who would be trying to escape climate disasters in their own countries: Think streams of people pouring over the southern border from Mexico or the northern border from Canada, for instance.

Still, the U.S. would have fallen somewhere just out of the Top 5, the researchers at Anglia Ruskin University in the U.K. told DailyMail.com.

Unfortunately, I believe that there are other factors which need to be considered which should push the U.S. way down the list.

For example, during the riots of 2020 we clearly witnessed the potential for widespread civil unrest in this country.  Major cities were burning from coast to coast last summer, and since that time we have been experiencing an unprecedented spike in violent crime.

So when things really start falling apart, I would strong recommend avoiding any of our core urban areas.

Another factor to consider is how authorities would react during a major pandemic.  This week, the authoritarian side of Joe Biden has come out, and it has been quite frightening to watch.

I think that one lesson that we have all learned over the past year is that during a global health crisis you really want to be some place where you can simply be left alone.

The potential for natural disasters is another very important factor that was not mentioned by the researchers that conducted the study.  Our world is not a stable place, and we saw another very clear example of this on Thursday.  Alaska was hit by a magnitude 8.2 earthquake, and that represented the largest quake to hit the United States in more than 50 years

The largest Alaska earthquake since 1965 caused a tsunami warning and local evacuations along the southwest Gulf of Alaska coast late Wednesday. After tsunami waves of less than 1 foot arrived onshore, the warning was canceled and coastal residents returned home.

Jeremy Zidek, a spokesman for the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, said he expects any damage from the earthquake may be revealed in the morning.

We are being told that it was the sixth largest earthquake in the recorded history of North America, and it really shook a lot of people up

In Sand Point, Patrick Mayer, the superintendent of schools for the Aleutians East Borough, was sitting in his kitchen when the shaking started.

“It started to go and just didn’t stop,” he said. “It went on for a long time and there were several aftershocks, too. The pantry is empty all over the floor, the fridge is empty all over the floor.”

Sadly, the truth is that this is just the beginning.

As I have detailed in “Lost Prophecies” and “7 Year Apocalypse”, I am deeply concerned about the potential for great natural disasters on both coasts and along the New Madrid fault zone in the middle of the country.

War is another factor that the researchers should have considered.

It is hard to imagine an entirely peaceful global societal collapse.  And when a major war does erupt, it is probably inevitable that the United States will be right in the middle of it.

Right now, military experts are telling us that Taiwan is one of the key hotspots that could potentially spark a major war, and we just learned that China recently simulated an invasion of the island…

FEARS of World War Three have been sparked after China staged massive military drills “invading Taiwan”.

Beijing also boasted about defeating the US and the UK in any conflict – and says it is confident the advantages are on its side.

And I also think that it is very noteworthy that Russia and China are planning to conduct “joint military exercises” next month…

Russia and China will conduct joint military exercises involving 10,000 troops in mid-August, the Interfax news agency cited the Russian defence ministry as saying on Thursday.

So many of the trends that I have been watching for years are now starting to accelerate.

The hour is late, and time is running out.

But of course any sort of a “global collapse” is simply unimaginable to most Americans, and for now ignorance is bliss.

*  *  *

It is finally here! Michael’s new book entitled “7 Year Apocalypse” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 20:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3j5eAF4 Tyler Durden

Changing Hyphens to En Dashes in Footnotes, in Bulk

Law review style is to write number ranges using en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-). I’d prefer if that wasn’t the norm, but it is; and for the Journal of Free Speech Law, we decided to stick with it. But many documents we get have hyphens; how can we easily change them to en dashes?

You can’t do it automatically in Microsoft Word, because some hyphens need to be kept as hyphens, e.g., a statutory section might be § 12-34 (even though the page range would be 12–34). But you can come close, using the wildcards feature in Word:

You then click on Find Next, see if that looks like a page range, click Replace if it is and Find Next again if it isn’t, and go on until everything is the way you like it.

How does this work?

  1. Checking “Use wildcards” shifts you into wildcard mode.
  2. ([0-9)-([0-9)] in the “Find what” box searches for a digit followed by a hyphen followed by a digit. The [0-9] indicates a digit, since it’s anything from a 0 to a 9; and the parentheses wrapped around the brackets indicate that the item before the hyphen should be treated as (I’ll call it) “thing 1” and the item after the hyphen should be treated as “thing 2.”
  3. \1–\2 in the “Replace with” box means “replace whatever you find, if you’re told to replace it, with thing 1, followed by an en dash, followed by thing 2.”

So when you have “84-85” in your document, this will find the “4-8” (it’s only searching for one digit before the hyphen and then one digit after that), and then—if you click “Replace”—replace the “4-8” with “4–8,” thus leaving you with “84–85.” Technology!

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Wzcp4V
via IFTTT

Survey Reveals How Americans Cope With Brutal Heat Wave  

Survey Reveals How Americans Cope With Brutal Heat Wave  

The Western half of the US has been plagued with a megadrought. Record-breaking heat waves pound the Pacific Northwest, and the wildfire situation in the region is worsening. All of these fast-changing weather phenomena have impacted Americans’ well-being. 

Piplsay, a global consumer research platform, conducted a survey this month to get insights into what Americans are thinking and how they cope with the severe weather. 

They found after polling 26,292 people that 47% of Americans say the ongoing heat waves have impacted their family’s health. Another 47% said their travel plans had been affected because of the extreme heat. About 61% of the respondents believe the ongoing heat waves and wildfires are a result of climate change. 

The increasing frequency and intensity of such weather events have begun to impact how Americans cope with the heat. About 34% of respondents said they spent more of their time inside due to excessive heat. Twenty-one percent said they purchased an air condition unit, and 15% said they frequent beaches and pools. 

The virus pandemic has already upended life in America. Now it appears extreme climate volatility is also changing how people live. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 20:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3BYyIkG Tyler Durden

Changing Hyphens to En Dashes in Footnotes, in Bulk

Law review style is to write number ranges using en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-). I’d prefer if that wasn’t the norm, but it is; and for the Journal of Free Speech Law, we decided to stick with it. But many documents we get have hyphens; how can we easily change them to en dashes?

You can’t do it automatically in Microsoft Word, because some hyphens need to be kept as hyphens, e.g., a statutory section might be § 12-34 (even though the page range would be 12–34). But you can come close, using the wildcards feature in Word:

You then click on Find Next, see if that looks like a page range, click Replace if it is and Find Next again if it isn’t, and go on until everything is the way you like it.

How does this work?

  1. Checking “Use wildcards” shifts you into wildcard mode.
  2. ([0-9)-([0-9)] in the “Find what” box searches for a digit followed by a hyphen followed by a digit. The [0-9] indicates a digit, since it’s anything from a 0 to a 9; and the parentheses wrapped around the brackets indicate that the item before the hyphen should be treated as (I’ll call it) “thing 1” and the item after the hyphen should be treated as “thing 2.”
  3. \1–\2 in the “Replace with” box means “replace whatever you find, if you’re told to replace it, with thing 1, followed by an en dash, followed by thing 2.”

So when you have “84-85” in your document, this will find the “4-8” (it’s only searching for one digit before the hyphen and then one digit after that), and then—if you click “Replace”—replace the “4-8” with “4–8,” thus leaving you with “84–85.” Technology!

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Wzcp4V
via IFTTT

Changing Hyphens to En Dashes in Footnotes, in Bulk

Law review style is to write number ranges using en dashes (–) rather than hyphens (-). I’d prefer if that wasn’t the norm, but it is; and for the Journal of Free Speech Law, we decided to stick with it. But many documents we get have hyphens; how can we easily change them to en dashes?

You can’t do it automatically in Microsoft Word, because some hyphens need to be kept as hyphens, e.g., a statutory section might be § 12-34 (even though the page range would be 12–34). But you can come close, using the wildcards feature in Word:

You then click on Find Next, see if that looks like a page range, click Replace if it is and Find Next again if it isn’t, and go on until everything is the way you like it.

How does this work?

  1. Checking “Use wildcards” shifts you into wildcard mode.
  2. ([0-9)-([0-9)] in the “Find what” box searches for a digit followed by a hyphen followed by a digit. The [0-9] indicates a digit, since it’s anything from a 0 to a 9; and the parentheses wrapped around the brackets indicate that the item before the hyphen should be treated as (I’ll call it) “thing 1” and the item after the hyphen should be treated as “thing 2.”
  3. \1–\2 in the “Replace with” box means “replace whatever you find, if you’re told to replace it, with thing 1, followed by an en dash, followed by thing 2.”

So when you have “84-85” in your document, this will find the “4-8” (it’s only searching for one digit before the hyphen and then one digit after that), and then—if you click “Replace”—replace the “4-8” with “4–8,” thus leaving you with “84–85.” Technology!

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Wzcp4V
via IFTTT

Biden Keeps Up Monthly Warship Transits Through Taiwan Strait

Biden Keeps Up Monthly Warship Transits Through Taiwan Strait

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The Biden administration is sending warships through the Taiwan Strait on a monthly basis to stoke tensions with Beijing. The US Navy’s Seventh Fleet said the guided-missile destroyer USS Benfold steamed through the sensitive waterway on Wednesday, the seventh such passage during Biden’s presidency.

In 2020, the Trump administration sailed warships through the Taiwan Strait 13 timesa record high, and a reflection of the US military’s new focus on China. The US also stepped up provocations in the South China Sea in 2020, conducting nine passages near Chinese-claimed islands in the disputed watersalso a record high.

USS Benfold (DDG-65), image source: US Navy

On Thursday, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) slammed the US for its latest provocation in the Taiwan Strait. “The US is the biggest destroyer of peace and stability … and the biggest maker of security risks across the Taiwan Strait,” the PLA’s Eastern Theater Command said in a statement.

China also reacted to a speech by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin that he made on Tuesday in Singapore. The Pentagon chief stressed the importance of alliances in the region and slammed what he called Beijing’s “destabilizing military activity and other forms of coercion against the people of Taiwan.”

China’s embassy in Singapore published a statement on Thursday responding to Austin’s comments:

“He not only interfered in China’s internal affairs by referring to matters relating to Taiwan and Xinjiang, but also played up the so-called China threat in an attempt to drive a wedge between China and its neighbors. These remarks distorted facts and created falsehoods, only to serve the US geopolitical strategy,” the statement said.

The Biden administration views alliance building in Asia as part of its anti-China strategy.

Austin also made stops in Vietnam and the Philippines this week to boost cooperation. Austin has vowed to focus on China, and his Pentagon has identified Beijing as the top “pacing threat” facing the US military.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 19:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lmJD1E Tyler Durden

“Extreme Staffing Shortages” Causes Trash Pile Up In Maryland  

“Extreme Staffing Shortages” Causes Trash Pile Up In Maryland  

President Biden’s socialist policy of having the government match or even surpass what private firms are paying has resulted in labor shortages countrywide. Shortages are rippling through every low-skill/low-paying job as people don’t want to work anymore. The problems are becoming so severe in one Maryland county that essential services, such as solid waste collection, are being affected. 

Baltimore County, the third-most populous county in the state and borderlines Baltimore City, employs dozens of private companies to pick up residential trash. At least one company is experiencing a severe labor shortage of either CDL drivers or trash throwers, according to local news Fox45. This has resulted in trash, recycling, and yard material collection delays, and in some neighborhoods, garbage is piling up. 

“We went to the hauler and asked what the situation is,” Michael Beichler, bureau chief of Baltimore County’s solid waste management department, said. “He’s having a rather common issue at this time. Lack of staffing … From unemployment compensation to people just who don’t want to do the work anymore.”

The situation is so dire that some trash trucks are being operated by just one person, instead of two or three: 

“I’ve seen drivers out there that are stopping, getting out of their truck, dumping the trash in the back, and then getting back in and driving,” Beichler said. “Those are the heroes. They’re working without their labor force.”

At least one of the 36 private trash firms that pick up trash in the county is experiencing severe labor shortages, and that number is likely to rise. 

What this means for county residents is that trash on specific routes will sit on the curb longer and could be susceptible to animals digging through or homeless searching for valuables. 

The labor shortage is no longer affecting just the private sector but now essential services. 

At the moment, there are approximately 9 million US job openings as Biden checks dish out generous benefits that disincentivize people from working. 

What could worsen the labor shortage is another “emergency” stimulus round of a trillion or two in stimmies as economic activity has peaked. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 19:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fh5lR8 Tyler Durden

The Provincetown Outbreak Shows Vaccinated People Can Be Infected by the Coronavirus, but the CDC’s Director Grossly Exaggerates That Risk


Rochelle-Walensky-7-20-21-b-Newscom

Three-quarters of 469 Massachusetts residents infected during a COVID-19 outbreak in Provincetown earlier this month were fully vaccinated, according to a report published today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Nine out of 10 cases involved the especially contagious delta variant of the coronavirus, and the CDC reports that it found “similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people,” which it says “raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.”

The outbreak in Provincetown, Cape Cod’s most popular destination, is Exhibit 1 in the CDC’s case for recommending that vaccinated people resume wearing face masks in public places. The study, which was published in the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, illustrates a point that CDC Director Rochelle Walensky has been emphasizing recently: COVID-19 vaccines do not provide complete protection against infection, especially when people are exposed to the delta variant, which accounts for the vast majority of recently identified cases in the United States. The CDC’s findings also suggest that vaccinated people infected by the delta variant may transmit it to others, although so far the evidence on that point is inconclusive.

The possibility of so-called breakthrough infections has been well-recognized since COVID-19 vaccines were first tested, and data from England, Scotland, and Israel suggest that risk may be higher with delta than with earlier variants. But the evidence indicates that the vaccines are still very effective at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, and it is important to keep the risk of less serious infections in perspective. Walensky has not been doing a very good job of that, as illustrated by her comments during a CNN interview on Wednesday.

“Every 20 vaccinated people, one or two of them could get a breakthrough infection,” Walensky told CNN’s John Berman. That statement, which implies that 5 to 10 percent of vaccinated people will catch COVID-19, grossly exaggerates the odds of a breakthrough infection. Walensky seems to have misconstrued the meaning of the effectiveness rates reported in vaccine studies, which is a pretty serious mistake for the head of the CDC to make.

When a vaccine is described as 90 percent effective against infection, that does not mean 10 percent of vaccinated subjects were infected. Rather, it means the risk of infection among vaccinated people was 90 percent lower than the risk among unvaccinated people. As the CDC noted on Tuesday, when it issued its revised mask guidance, post-approval studies of COVID-19 vaccines typically have found that they reduce the risk of infection by 86 percent to 99 percent. That means the odds of a breakthrough infection were much lower than Walensky suggested on CNN.

In one U.S. study of adults who had received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines, for example, the incidence of positive COVID-19 tests among fully vaccinated subjects was 0.048 per 1,000 person-days, compared to 0.43 per 1,000 person-days among the unvaccinated controls, yielding an effectiveness rate of 89 percent. A study of U.S. health care workers put the incidence of infection at 1.38 per 1,000 person-days when the subjects were unvaccinated, compared to 0.04 per 1,000 person-days when they were fully vaccinated, yielding an effectiveness rate of 97 percent. In both cases, the risk of a breakthrough infection was at least an order of magnitude lower than the 5-to-10-percent estimate that Walensky offered.

That is also true in studies that suggest vaccines are less effective at preventing infection by the delta variant. The CDC notes a recent population survey in England that found full vaccination reduced the chance of infection by 72 percent, notably lower than the effectiveness rates in studies involving earlier variants. But even in that study, just 0.07 percent of fully vaccinated people tested positive for COVID-19, compared to 0.24 percent of unvaccinated people.

In the United States, breakthrough infections still seem to be rare, notwithstanding the delta variant, as the CDC acknowledges. “The 125,682 ‘breakthrough’ cases in 38 states found by NBC News represent less than .08 percent of the 164.2 million-plus people who have been fully vaccinated since January, or about one in every 1,300,” CNBC reports. CNBC notes that “the total number of breakthrough cases is likely higher,” since “nine states, including Pennsylvania and Missouri, did not provide any information” and “vaccinated adults who have breakthrough cases but show no symptoms could be missing from the data altogether.” But even if the true number is two or three times as high, it would still not be remotely consistent with Walensky’s risk estimate.

CNBC also quotes Erin McHenry, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Department of Health. “Our most recent data shows that 99.9 percent of Minnesotans who are fully vaccinated have not contracted the virus,” she says.

Last spring, the misconception that seems to underlie Walensky’s risk estimate generated an erroneous CNN story that claimed vaccinated air travelers face a 10 percent risk of infection. Confusion about vaccine effectiveness rates continues to show up in press coverage of COVID-19. Yesterday NPR quoted Kathleen Neuzil, director of the Center for Vaccine Development and Global Health at the University of Maryland, as saying that “even with a 95% efficacious vaccine, you will have one in 20 vaccinees who are exposed get the disease.”

I emailed Neuzil about that statement, which is similar to what Walensky said on CNN. “I was actually misquoted on that one,” Neuzil said, “and you are the first one to pick up on it (or at least reach out to me about it!). Sometimes in simplifying we don’t get the message right. The bottom line is that vaccine isn’t 100% protective, and even at high levels of protection we will have breakthrough.”

That bottom line is certainly correct. But in warning people about that possibility, public health officials like Walensky should not distort the underlying science by saying the risk is much bigger than the evidence indicates. This episode is reminiscent of Walensky’s hyperbole about the risk of outdoor COVID-19 transmission, which misrepresented the study she cited in several significant ways.

What about the risk that a breakthrough infection will spread the virus to others? The CDC attributes the Provincetown outbreak, which occurred from July 3 through July 17, to “densely packed indoor and outdoor events that included bars, restaurants, guest houses and rental homes.” The Washington Post reports that “at least five events sparked the outbreak, so it is not possible to blame it on one party or one bar.” Nor is it yet clear how many of the infections were acquired from vaccinated carriers. The Post says researchers “are analyzing the genetic fingerprints of the virus samples” to “trace chains of transmission and determine how commonly fully vaccinated people were infecting one another.”

While the CDC’s press release says “high viral loads” in nasal samples from vaccinated people infected in Provincetown “suggest an increased risk of transmission,” the study itself is more circumspect. “Cycle threshold values [in RT-PCR tests] were similar among specimens from patients who were fully vaccinated and those who were not,” the authors say. But they caution that “Ct values obtained with SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR diagnostic tests might provide a crude correlation to the amount of virus present in a sample and can also be affected by factors other than viral load.” And even if the viral loads in nasal samples from vaccinated and unvaccinated people were indeed similar, it’s not clear whether that means the two groups were equally likely to transmit the virus.

An Israeli study of 1,497 fully vaccinated health care workers, reported this week in The New England Journal of Medicine, identified 39 breakthrough infections, the vast majority of which were mild or asymptomatic. Three-quarters of those subjects “had a high viral load…at some point during their infection.” Yet “no secondary infections were documented.”

The CDC’s Provincetown study also warns that “data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak.” About 69 percent of eligible Massachusetts residents had been vaccinated at the time of the Provincetown outbreak, one of the highest rates in the country. “As population-level vaccination coverage increases,” the study notes, “vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases.”

The authors nevertheless suggest that “jurisdictions might consider expanded prevention strategies, including universal masking in indoor public settings, particularly for large public gatherings that include travelers from many areas with differing levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.” That recommendation goes beyond the guidance that the CDC issued on Tuesday, which was limited to “areas of substantial or high transmission,” a category that did not include Provincetown prior to the outbreak.

In her CNN interview, Walensky conceded that “the vast majority” of COVID-19 transmission “is coming from unvaccinated people.” She noted that 80 percent of counties with high transmission have vaccination rates below 40 percent. But she added that “we wanted people who are vaccinated to understand that they could potentially pass this virus if they were one of those breakthrough infections.”

That danger represents the combination of two probabilities: the probability that a vaccinated person will be infected, which is much lower than the odds that an unvaccinated person will be infected and much, much lower than Walensky implied, and the probability that an unvaccinated person who is infected will transmit the virus. The CDC’s Provincetown study may ultimately shed light on the latter issue. But at this point, we still don’t know how many of those cases (if any) can be traced to vaccinated carriers.

“Predominantly,” CNN’s Berman noted, “this is something coming from unvaccinated people to unvaccinated people.” Walensky agreed. “So then you can understand the frustration in those of us who are vaccinated,” Berman said. “[We are] saying, ‘Why the hell do I have to pay the price for this?'” Here is where Walensky claimed that vaccinated people have a one or two in 20 chance of being infected, which is not remotely true and can only further undermine confidence in the vaccines she is urging everyone to get.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3C30fBQ
via IFTTT