Monthly Archives: March 2022

Two years have passed since the first case of COVID-19 was detected in Connecticut. The first case was announced on March 8, 2020.

It would not be long before the pandemic changed life as we knew it. Social distancing became an everyday practice and face masks became a necessity when interacting with anyone outside your household.

In the last two years, there have been 727,542 cases of COVID-19 in the state and 10,515 COVID-19 related deaths.

Two years later, COVID-19 is still affecting lives, but vaccinations have provided hope and many restrictions put in place have been lifted, including face mask requirements.

Here is a look back at the early days of the pandemic.

The first case of COVID-19 in Connecticut was announced on March 8, 2020.

Two years after being hospitalized, Chris Tillett, who was Connecticut's first COVID-19 patient, says he hopes the pandemic can be a learning experience for everyone.

In the initial days of the pandemic, the state lab was able to complete between 15 and 20 COVID-19 tests per day and there were only a few labs that could handle tests and people getting tested needed to be referred by a physician in advance.

On March 10, 2020, Gov. Ned Lamont declared civil preparedness and public health emergencies in response to the pandemic, which allowed him to temporarily suspend some state laws and regulations.

By March 12, 2020, the governor banned all events in the state with more than 250 people.

Schools were beginning to close because of the pandemic and the governor signed an order to modify the state law requiring schools to be in session for at least 180 days.

Among the actions the governor took was an order for the state Department of Motor Vehicles to extend license renewals.

Restrictions were placed on visits to nursing homes.

On March 14, a moratorium on all utility shut-offs went into place and several state agencies rolled out measures to promote social distancing.

At that point, there had been 20 positive cases of COVID-19 in the state.

Lamont signed his third executive order, which relaxed in-person open meeting requirements and eased telework requirements, allowing more state employees to work from home.

On March 15, 2020, Lamont canceled classes at all public schools statewide, which was originally supposed to be in effect from March 17 through at least March 31.

In May 2020, Gov. Ned Lamont would announce that schools would be closed for the rest of the academic year.

He authorized the DMV commissioner to close branches to the public, conduct business remotely, and extend deadlines.

Amid a national shortage of hand sanitizer, the state allowed pharmacies to make and sell their own.

Many businesses were closing their doors and the governor announced on March 16, 2020 that small businesses and nonprofit organizations in Connecticut that were negatively impacted by the pandemic would be eligible for disaster relief loans.

By March 16, 2020, gatherings of more than 50 people were prohibited, drive-through COVID-19 testing started at some hospitals and several businesses were ordered to closed by 8 p.m.

The governor also announced that the State Department of Education was working with school districts to develop distance learning plans and ensure students had access to nutritious meals.

The governors of Connecticut, New York and New Jersey worked together with a regional approach to dealing with COVID-19, which included that restaurants and bars that served food would temporarily be required to move to take-out and delivery services only and bars that did not serve food would have to close.

Price gouging had become an issue and by March 17, 2020, Attorney General William Tong reported receiving 71 complaints about price gouging on basic supplies.

On March 18, 2020, the governor announced the first COVID-19 death in the state. https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2020/03-2020/Governor-Lamont-Statement-on-the-First-Coronavirus-Death-in-Connecticut

On March 18, 2020, Lamont announced that indoor malls and places of amusement other than parks and open space areas would close by the night of March 19.

A day later, on March 19, Lamont postponed the states presidential primary, allowed eating establishments to sell alcohol with take-out food orders, closed barbershops, hair salons and tattoo and piercing parlors, and expanded telehealth.

On March 20, 2022, Lamont started Stay Safe, Stay Home, which directed non-essential businesses to close by 8 p.m. on March 23, 2020, and for those that had to remain open to implement social distancing.

He called for all non-essential public community gatherings of any size to be canceled or postponed.

People were also asked to limit outdoor recreational activities to non-contact and avoid activities where they come in close contact with other people.

By March 26, 2020, there were more than 1,000 cases of COVID-19 in Connecticut and 21 deaths.

As the pandemic extended, the state Department of Labor was inundated with unemployment claims and held frequent briefings on the status of processing what they called an overwhelming surge in claim applications resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the pandemic stretched to months, Lamont called in the National Guard for help.

To help reduce the spread of the virus, a regional travel advisory went into effect.

It required people coming in from states with a significant community spread of COVID-19 to self-quarantine for 14 days.

During the summer travel season of 2020, it affected where people could freely travel to and from or to quarantine upon returning home.

By Aug. 3, 2020, there had been more than 50,062 cases of COVID-19 in Connecticut and more than 4,400 deaths.

As of Monday, March 7, 2022, there have been 727,542 cases of COVID-19 in the state and 10,515 COVID-19 related deaths.

At the height of the pandemic, thousands of people were hospitalized with COVID-19.

As of Monday, 145patients were hospitalized with COVID-19,and 64, or 44.1%,are not fully vaccinated.

View original post here:

Two Years Later: A Look Back at Beginning of COVID-19 Pandemic in CT - NBC Connecticut

Key messages:

The World Health Organization, with the support of the Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC),continues to review and assess the public health implications of emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern (VOC) on the performance of COVID-19 vaccines. Since the publication of the interim statement on COVID-19 vaccines on 11 January 2022, Omicron has become the dominant VOC globally,rapidly replacing other circulating variants. This statement highlights the global epidemiological situation, challenges of updating vaccine composition and provides the current position of the TAG-CO-VAC.

The current global epidemiological situation is characterized by rapid and relatively synchronous dominance of Omicron variant in all six WHO regions. While global cases are declining, there are reduced testing resources and capacities in some areas andthe epidemiological situation remains heterogeneous, with a number of regions and countries reporting increases in new weekly cases, while others are now reporting declines.

Omicron is comprised of several genetically related sublineages, including BA.1, BA.2 and BA.3, each of which is being monitored by WHO and partners. At a global level, BA.1 has been the predominant Omicron lineage, however, the proportion of reportedsequences designated as BA.2 has been increasing relative to BA.1 in recent weeks, and is the predominant Omicron lineage in several countries. BA.1 and BA.2 have some genetic differences, which may make them antigenically distinct. Reinfection withBA.2 following infection with BA.1 has been documented, however, initial data from population-level studies suggest that infection with BA.1 provides substantial protection against reinfection with BA.2, at least for the limited period for which dataare available. For more details on the Omicron sublineages, please refer to the statement by WHO on the Omicron sublineage BA.2 , published on 22 February 2022.

The public health goal of COVID-19 vaccination prioritizes protection against severe disease and death. Current vaccines appear to confer high levels of protection against severe disease outcomes associated with Omicron infection. The TAG-CO-VAC thereforestrongly supports urgent and broad access to current COVID-19 vaccines for primary series and booster doses, particularly for groups at risk of developing severe disease. The near- and medium-term supply of the available vaccines has increased substantially,however, vaccine equity remains an important challenge and all efforts to address such inequities are strongly encouraged.

The first interim statement from the TAG-CO-VAC highlighted the need for the development of vaccines that provide protection against infection and prevent transmission, in addition to the protection from severe disease and death, as a means to achievea greater public health impact from COVID-19 vaccination. In this context, vaccines that are able to elicit mucosal immunity, in addition to systemic immunity, are an important goal. One of the options proposed in the first statement was the developmentof pan SARS-CoV-2 or pansarbecovirus vaccines. Such vaccines would provide protection that would effectively be variant-proof, and work in this area should be accelerated.

Current vaccines are based on the virus that circulated early in the pandemic (ancestral virus e.g. GISAID: hCoV-19/Wuhan/WIV04/2019). Since then, there has been continuous and substantial virus evolution and it is likely that this evolution will continue,resulting in the emergence of new variants. The composition of current COVID-19 vaccines may therefore need to be updated. Any update to current COVID-19 vaccine composition would aim to, at a minimum, retain protection against severe disease anddeath, while ensuring the breadth of the immune response against circulating and emerging variants, which may be antigenically distinct.

The TAG-CO-VAC considered a number of issues, all of which are important in any decision on COVID-19 vaccine composition:

The TAG-CO-VAC welcomes, where feasible, the development and initiation of clinical trials on variant-specific candidate vaccines against WHO-designated VOCs, including Omicron. In this context, the TAG-CO-VAC is seeking evidence of robust homologousimmune responses in primed and unprimed individuals and cross-reactivity data in primed individuals. The TAG-CO-VAC encourages collection of data following one and two doses of any modified vaccine across a variety of relevant vaccine platforms.

The TAG-CO-VAC continues to encourage COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to generate and provide data to WHO on the performance of current and variant-specific candidate COVID-19 vaccines, including the breadth, magnitude, and durability of humoral and cell-mediatedimmune responses to variants through monovalent and/or multivalent vaccines. The TAG-CO-VAC will carefully consider these data as part of a broader decision-making framework on COVID-19 vaccine composition, allowing the TAG-CO-VAC to issue more specificadvice on any adjustments that may be needed to COVID-19 vaccine strain composition, developed either as a monovalent vaccine targeting the predominant circulating variant(s) or a multivalent vaccine derived from different variants.

The TAG-CO-VAC recognizes the independent role and procedures of relevant regulatory authorities in establishing the necessary requirements for evaluation under the currently established regulatory pathways, and the role of WHO in ensuring alignment,collaboration and a continuous exchange of information between WHO and its expert groups, the TAG-CO-VAC, regulatory authorities, and COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers.

The statement reflects the current vaccine performance and landscape of vaccine development. The statement will therefore be updated as data become available.

Follow this link:

Interim Statement on COVID-19 vaccines in the context of the circulation of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant from the WHO Technical Advisory Group on...

Pandemic divergence: A short note on COVID-19 and global income inequality Skip to main content Abstract

In this paper we provide an initial assessment of the economic losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic in two ways: as output contractions in 2020-2021 and as growth revisions (the estimated cumulative output loss in 2020-2030 based on growth forecasts before and after COVID-19). We find that, whereas the immediate GDP impact seems to favor poorer countries that were less intensely hit by the virus, the long-term economic cost correlates negatively with the countrys initial per capita GDP, worsening global income inequality. The note identifies empirically some of the key drivers of these country differences (e.g., informality, tourism dependence, fiscal space) and provides broader estimates of COVID-related economic loss that incorporate the costs associated with fiscal stimuli, excess deaths, and education lockdowns.

Download the full working paper

Get global development updates from Brookings

Get daily updates from Brookings

Visit link:

Pandemic divergence: A short note on COVID-19 and global income inequality - Brookings Institution

KINGSTON, N.Y. Ulster Countys active COVID-19 cases have dropped to double digits, according to the governments online coronavirus dashboard.

The county reported Tuesday that on Monday, March 7, there were just 77 active cases, 55 fewer than the 132 reported a day earlier. The last time the active case number was in the double digits was in July of 2021.

But Ulster County reported one new death on Tuesday, bringing the total to 372 since the pandemic began in March 2020.

The county said that it has had 37,052 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 36,603 recoveries.

Tuesday, March 8, marked the two-year anniversary of the first COVID-10 case reported in Ulster County.

Dutchess County on Tuesday reported no additional COVID-19 deaths as of Sunday, March 6, leaving the countys pandemic-related death toll to 650, according to the governments COVID-19 dashboard.

The county reported that active cases shrank slightly, to 131 as of Sunday. Thats down 10 cases from the 141 reported Saturday.

Dutchess County has recorded a pandemic total of 63,329 cases of COVID-19 since March 2020.

The dashboard numbers do not include home test results not reported to health departments.

Data as of Monday, March 7, from thestate Department of Health..

Ellenville Regional Hospital, 0.

HealthAlliance Hospitals in Kingston, 7.

Northern Dutchess Hospital in Rhinebeck, 1.

Vassar Brothers Medical Center in Poughkeepsie, 5.

Mid-Hudson Regional Hospital in Poughkeepsie, 3.

Data as of Monday, March 7, from New Yorkstates online vaccine tracker.

Ulster County: 74% fully vaccinated, 81% with at least one dose of a two-dose regimen, 89.1% of 18+ population with at least one dose.

Dutchess County: 68.8% fully vaccinated, 76.6% with at least one dose of a two-dose regimen, 85.1% of 18+ population with at least one dose.

Appointments:vaccinateulster.com,bit.ly/dut-vax,bit.ly/ny-vaxme

Here are the latest reports ofCOVID cases in area school districts.

Kingston: One student at the high school.

Highland: One student at the elementary school and one student, one teacher at the middle school.

Onteora: One student at Phoenicia Elementary School.

Rondout Valley: One staff at Kerhonkson Elementary School and one student at Rondout Valley Intermediate School.

Saugerties: One student each at Cahill Elementary School, the junior high school and the high school.

Marlboro: One staff at the elementary school.

Red Hook: One student each at the Mill Road Intermediate School and the Mill Road Primary School.

BOCES: One teacher at the Career and Technical Education Center and one student, one teacher, one staff at the Center for Innovative Teaching and learning.

For online local coverage related to the coronavirus, go todailyfreeman.com/tag/coronavirus.

The rest is here:

Active COVID-19 cases dive to double digits in Ulster County - The Daily Freeman

Dear Students, Faculty, Staff and Families:

In recent weeks, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), New York State Governor Kathy Hochul, the Onondaga County executive, and many of our national and New York state peer institutions have announced significant changes to public health guidelines. Primarily, these changes relate to reduced indoor masking requirements, including the elimination of mask mandates for children attending K-12 public schools across New York state.

Here on the Syracuse University campus, we continue to pursue a public health policy that is aligned with local conditions and local data. Accordingly, Im writing today to announce that, conditions permitting, the University will transition on Monday, March 14, to the Yellow level on the COVID masking framework. This action would align our masking practices on campus with the most recent guidance from the CDC, and those in place in the local community and around the country.

Under the Yellow masking level:

In addition to the recent changes on masking announced by the CDC and New York State, there are several other indicators and metrics informing this action, including:

Please note that Syracuse University will continue to offer free and on-demand COVID testing to students, faculty, staff and families. Further, we will also continue our random surveillance testing program and wastewater testing of our residence halls. However, to further ease the COVID-related requirements for fully vaccinated individuals, we will begin to reduce the number of vaccinated individuals required to test each week, while prioritizing ongoing testing for vaccine-exempt individuals. Please visit the Stay Safe website for the most up-to-date testing hours.

The action were announcing today is possible because of our communitys commitment to good public health practicesparticularly the overwhelming campus community compliance with the Universitys COVID vaccination and booster requirement.

Thank you for your continued commitment to the health and wellness of our community.

Sincerely,

J. Michael HaynieVice Chancellor for Strategic Initiatives and Innovation

Read the original post:

COVID-19 Update: Continued Assessment of Masking Guidance - Syracuse University News

The studies in this group used the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, which looked at government responses worldwide to the pandemic and created a stringency index, measuring how strict the measures were over time. The index is from 0 to 100, with 100 being the most stringent restrictions. For instance, the OxCGRT heat map shows that many countries around the world had stringency levels above 70 in April 2020.

The working paper calculates mortality impact estimates for each of the seven studies aiming to show the effect of the average mandated restrictions in Europe and the United States early in the pandemic compared with a policy of only recommendations. The paper then calculates a weighted average, giving more weight to studies that said their findings were more precise. Nearly all of the weight 91.8% goes to one study, even though the working paper rejects the conclusions of that study.

That study coauthored by Carolyn Chisadza, a senior lecturer in economics at the University of Pretoria, and published on March 10, 2021, in the journal Sustainability looked at a sample of countries between March and September 2020 and concluded: Less stringent interventions increase the number of deaths, whereas more severe responses to the pandemic can lower fatalities.

The working paper claims the researchers conclusion is incorrect but it uses the studys estimates, saying the figures show an increase in mortality due to lockdowns.

Chisadza told us in an email that the study showed: Stricter lockdowns will reduce the rate of deaths than would have occurred without lockdown or too lenient of restrictions. But Hanke said the data from Chisadza and her colleagues only show that stricter lockdowns will reduce mortality relative to the worst possible lockdown, meaning a more lenient lockdown that, under the study, was associated with the highest rate of deaths.

We reached out to a third party about this disagreement. Victor Chernozhukov, a professor in the Massachusetts Institute of Technologys Department of Economics and the Statistics and Data Science Center, along with Professor Hiroyuki Kasahara and Associate Professor Paul Schrimpf, both with the Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia the authors of another study that was included in the working paper looked at the Chisadza study and provided FactCheck.org with a peer review of it. They found the Chisadza study only measured the correlation between current death growth rates and current policies. It did not show the lagged effect of more stringent policies, implemented three weeks prior, on current death growth rates, which is what one would want to look at to evaluate the effectiveness of lockdowns.

In an email and in a phone interview, Chernozhukov told us the Chisadza study made an honest mistake. He said the working paper is deeply flawed partly because it relies heavily on a study that estimates the wrong effect very precisely.

In their review, Chernozhukov, Kasahara and Schrimpf write that the Chisadza et al. study should be interpreted as saying that the countries currently experiencing high death rates (or death growth rates) are more likely to implement more stringent current policy. That is the only conclusion we can draw from [the study], because the current policy can not possibly influence the current deaths, given the several weeks of delay between new infections and deaths.

The effect that should be examined for the meta-analysis is the effect of the previous (e.g., 3 week lagged) policy stringency index on the current death growth rates.

Chernozhukov, Kasahara and Schrimpf conducted a quick reanalysis of similar data to the Chisadza study, finding results that suggest that more stringent policies in the past predict lower death growth rates. Chernozhukov said much more analysis would be needed to further characterize this effect, but that it is actually quite substantial.

If the Chisadza study were removed from the working paper, according to one of the papers footnotes, the result would be a weighted average reduction in mortality of 3.5%, which Hanke said doesnt change the overall conclusions. He said it simply demonstrates the obvious fact that the conclusions contained in our meta-analysis are robust.

But experts have pointed out other issues with the meta-analysis. Chernozhukov also said the paper excluded a whole bunch of studies, including synthetic control method studies, which evaluate treatment effects. He also questioned the utility of looking at a policy index that considers the U.S. as a whole, lumping all the states together. He said the meta-analysis is not credible at all.

Among the other six stringency index studies included in the meta-analysis, only one concluded that its findings suggested lockdowns had zero effect on mortality. In a review of 24 European countries weekly mortality rates for the first six months of 2017-2020, the study, published in CESifo Economic Studies, found no clear association between lockdown policies and mortality development. The author and Herby, one of the authors of the working paper, have written for the American Institute for Economic Research, which facilitated the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 statement advocating those at low risk of dying from COVID-19 live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while those at highest risk are protected.

The other studies found lockdown policies helped COVID-19 health outcomes. For instance, a CDC study published in the agencys Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in January 2021, on the experience of 37 European countries from Jan. 23 to June 30, 2020, concluded that countries that implemented more stringent mitigation policies earlier in their outbreak response tended to report fewer COVID-19 deaths through the end of June 2020. These countries might have saved several thousand lives relative to countries that implemented similar policies, but later.

A working paper from Harvard Universitys Center for International Development, which looked at 152 countries from the beginning of the pandemic until Dec. 31, 2020, found that lockdowns tend to significantly reduce the spread of the virus and the number of related deaths. But the effect fades over time, so lengthy (after four months) or second-phase lockdowns dont have the same impact.

A study published in World Medical & Health Policy in November 2020 that looked at whether 24 European countries responded quickly enough found that the fluctuating containment measures, from country to country and over time, prohibited a clear association with the mortality rate. But it said the implementation speed of these containment measures in response to the coronavirus had a strong effect on the successful mitigation of fatalities.

Many studies found restrictions worked. Meyerowitz-Katz noted that the working paper authors disagreed with the conclusions of other studies included in the review, pointing to one included in the group of shelter-in-place orders. Meyerowitz-Katz said that study found that significant restrictions were effective, but is included in this review as estimating a 13.1% INCREASE in fatalities.

That study, by Yale School of Management researchers, published by The Review of Financial Studies in June 2021, developed a time-series database on several types of restrictions for every U.S. county from March to December 2020. The authors concluded: We find strong evidence consistent with the idea that employee mask policies, mask mandates for the general population, restaurant and bar closures, gym closures, and high-risk business closures reduce future fatality growth. Other business restrictions, such as second-round closures of low- to medium-risk businesses and personal care/spa services, did not generate consistent evidence of lowered fatality growth and may have been counterproductive. The authors said the studys findings lie somewhere in the middle of the existing results on how NPIs influenced the spread of COVID-19.

In terms of hard figures on fatality reductions, the study said the estimates suggest a county with a mandatory mask policy would see 15.3% fewer new deaths per 10,000 residents on average six weeks later, compared with a county without a mandatory mask policy. The impact for restaurant closures would be a decrease of 36.4%. But the estimates suggest other measures, including limits on gatherings of 100 people or more, appeared to increase deaths. The authors said one possible explanation of such effects could be that the public is substituting other activities that actually increase transmission of the virus such as hosting weddings with 99 people in attendance, just under the 100-person limitation.

Another study in the shelter-in-place group is the study by Chernozhukov, Kasahara and Schrimpf, published in theJournal of Econometrics in January 2021. It looked at the policies in U.S. states and found that nationally mandating face masks for employees early in the pandemic could have led to as much as 19 to 47 percent less deaths nationally by the end of May, which roughly translates into 19 to 47 thousand saved lives. It found cases would have been 6% to 63% higher without stay-at-home orders and found considerable uncertainty over the impact of closing schools. It also found substantial declines in growth rates are attributable to private behavioral response, but policies played an important role as well.

The working paper considered 13 studies that evaluated stay-in-place orders, either alone or in combination with other NPIs. The estimated effect on total fatalities for each study calculated by the authors varied quite widely, from a decrease of 40.8% to an increase of 13.1% (the study above mentioned by Meyerowitz-Katz). The authors then combined the studies into a weighted average showing a 2.9% decrease in mortality from these studies on shelter-in-place orders.

Sizable impact from some NPIs. The working paper actually found a sizable decrease in deaths related to closing nonessential businesses: a 10.6% weighted average reduction in mortality. The authors said this is likely to be related to the closure of bars. It also calculated a 21.2% weighted average reduction in deaths due to mask requirements, but notes this conclusion is based on only two studies.

As with the shelter-in-place group, the calculated effects in the specific NPIs group varied widely from a 50% reduction in mortality due to business closures to a 36% increase due to border closures. The paper said differences in the choice of NPIs and in the number of NPIs make it challenging to create an overview of the results.

The review itself does refer to other papers that reported that the lockdowns had a significant impact in preventing deaths, Dr. Lee Riley, chair of the Division of Infectious Disease and Vaccinology at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health, told us when we asked for his thoughts on the working paper. The pandemic has now been occurring long enough that its not surprising to begin to see many more reports that now contradict each other. As we all know, the US and Europe went through several periods when they relaxed their lockdowns, which was followed by a resurgence of the cases.

Riley said that many of the studies that this review included may suffer from the classic chicken-or-egg bias. Whenever there was an increase in cases of deaths, lockdowns got instituted so its not surprising that some of the studies showed no impact of the lockdowns. If there was no surge of cases or deaths, most places in the US did not impose restrictions.

Meyerowitz-Katz noted on Twitter that the impact of lockdowns is very hard to assess, if for no other reason than we have no good definition of lockdown in the first place. In most cases, it seems the authors have taken estimates for stay-at-home orders as their practical definition of lockdown (this is pretty common) And honestly, Id agree that the evidence for marginal benefit from stay-at-home orders once youve already implemented dozens of restrictions is probably quite weak.

But, if we consider lockdown to be any compulsory restriction at all, the reality is that virtually all research shows a (short-term) mortality benefit from at least some restrictions.

Weve already mentioned two studies beyond those in the working paper: the Nature June 2020 study by Imperial College London researchers that estimated interventions in 11 countries in Europe in the first few months of the pandemic reduced transmission and averted 3.1 million deaths; and the Nature May 2020 study that estimated cases in mainland China would have been 67-fold greater without several NPIs by the end of February.

There are many more that aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various mitigation strategies, not included in the working papers analysis.

Near the end of his lengthy Twitter thread on the working paper, Meyerowitz-Katz said he agrees that a lot of people originally underestimated the impact of voluntary behaviour change on COVID-19 death rates its probably not wrong to argue that lockdowns werent as effective as we initially thought. He pointed to the Nature Communications study mentioned above, showing less of an impact from NPIs in a second wave of COVID-19 and positing individual safety behaviors were playing more of a role in that second wave.

HOWEVER, this runs both ways, Meyerowitz-Katz said. [I]t is also quite likely that lockdowns did not have the NEGATIVE impact most people propose, because some behaviour changes were voluntary!

He and others examined whether lockdowns were more harmful than the pandemic itself in a 2021 commentary piece in BMJ Global Health. They concluded that government interventions, even more restrictive ones such as stay-at-home orders, are beneficial in some circumstances and unlikely to be causing harms more extreme than the pandemic itself. Analyzing excess mortality suggested that lockdowns are not associated with large numbers of deaths in places that avoided large COVID-19 epidemics, such as Australia and New Zealand, they wrote.

Editors note:SciChecks COVID-19/Vaccination Projectis made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation hasno controlover FactCheck.orgs editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.

Herby, Jonas et al. A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality. Studies in Applied Economics, Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise, Johns Hopkins University. posted Jan 2022.

World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Herd immunity, lockdowns and COVID-19. 31 Dec 2020.

Flaxman, Seth et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature. 584 (2020).

Lai, Shengjie et al. Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions to contain COVID-19 in China. Nature. 585 (2020).

Sharfstein, Joshua, vice dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Statement emailed to FactCheck.org. 8 Feb 2022.

Best, Paul. Lockdowns only reduced COVID-19 death rate by .2%, study finds: Lockdowns should be rejected out of hand.' Fox News. 1 Feb 2022.

Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon. @GidMK. This paper has been doing the rounds, claiming that lockdown was useless (the source of the 0.2% effect of lockdown claim). Dozens of people have asked my opinion of it, so here we go: In my opinion, it is a very weak review that doesnt really show much, if anything 1/n. Twitter.com. 4 Feb 2022.

Hanke, Steve H., founder and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 18 Feb 2022.

Ferguson, Neil, director of the MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, Jameel Institute, Imperial College London. Statement posted by Science Media Centre. 3 Feb 2022.

Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker. Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. https://covidtracker.bsg.ox.ac.uk/. website accessed 20 Feb 2022.

Chisadza, Carolyn, senior lecturer in economics at the University of Pretoria. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 15 Feb 2022.

Clance, Matthew, associate professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Pretoria. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 16 Feb 2022.

Our World in Data. Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 deaths. website accessed 22 Feb 2022.

Bjornskov, Christian. Did Lockdown Work? An Economists Cross-Country Comparison. CESifo Economic Studies. 67.3 (2021).

Fuller, James A. et al. Mitigation Policies and COVID-19Associated Mortality 37 European Countries, January 23June 30, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 70.2 (2021).

Goldstein, P. et al. Lockdown Fatigue: The Diminishing Effects of Quarantines on the Spread of COVID-19. Harvard University Center for International Development. 2021.

Stockenhuber, Reinhold. Did We Respond Quickly Enough? How Policy-Implementation Speed in Response to COVID-19 Affects the Number of Fatal Cases in Europe. World Medical & Health Policy. 12.4 (2020).

Riley, Lee, chair of the Division of Infectious Disease and Vaccinology at the University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 14 Feb 2022.

Spiegel, Matthew and Heather Tookes. Business Restrictions and COVID-19 Fatalities. The Review of Financial Studies. 34.11 (2021).

Chernozhukov, Victor et al. Causal impact of masks, policies, behavior on early covid-19 pandemic in the U.S. Journal of Econometrics. 220. 1 (2021).

Hale, Thomas et al. Global Assessment of the Relationship between Government Response Measures and COVID-19 Deaths. medrxiv.org. 6 Jul 2020.

Hale, Thomas et al. Government responses and COVID-19 deaths: Global evidence across multiple pandemic waves. Plos One. 9 Jul 2021.

Brauner, Jan M. et al. Inferring the effectiveness of government interventions against COVID-19. Science. 371.6531 (2020).

Haug, Mils et al. Ranking the effectiveness of worldwide COVID-19 government interventions. Nature Human Behaviour. 4 (2020).

Sharma, Mrinank et al. Understanding the effectiveness of government interventions against the resurgence of COVID-19 in Europe. Nature Communications. 12 (2021).

Yang, Jiannan et al. The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the prevention and control of COVID-19 in New York City. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science. 31.2 (2021).

Achenbach, Joel and Laura Meckler. Shutdowns prevented 60 million coronavirus infections in the U.S., study finds. Washington Post. 8 Jun 2020.

Hsiang, Solomon et al. The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature. 584 (2020).

Chernozhukov, Victor et al. Comments on the John Hopkins Meta Study (Herby et al., 2022) and Chisadza et al. (2021). Provided to FactCheck.org. 4 Mar 2022.

Chernozhukov, Victor, professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Economics and the Statistics and Data Science Center. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 8 Mar 2022.

View post:

What We've Learned About So-Called 'Lockdowns' and the COVID-19 Pandemic - FactCheck.org

DENVER (KDVR) COVID-19 rates continue to decline in Colorado as the state moves into theendemic phase.

The state continues to see a decline in COVID-19rates. This week, 21 counties saw an increase in positivity.

As of Monday, the states seven-day positivity rate was 3.11%, which is down from4.01% seven days ago. Positivity rate measures the amount of COVID positive tests to the total amount of tests taken.

Over the last week, 38 counties saw a decrease in COVID-19 positivity, 21 counties saw a rise, two counties stayed the same, and three counties administered fewer than 10 tests.

According to theColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, incidence rates also dropped over the last week.

Heres a look atpositivity rates for every county over the last seven days:

According toJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the percent positive is exactly what it sounds like: the percentage of all coronavirus tests performed that are actually positive, or: (positive tests)/(total tests) x 100%. The percent positive (sometimes called the percent positive rate or positivity rate) helps public health officials answer questions suchas:

The percent positive will be high if the number ofpositive testsis too high, or if the number oftotal testsis too low. A higher percent positive suggests higher transmission and that there are likely more people with coronavirus in the community who havent been tested yet, Johns Hopkins shared.

Continued here:

These 21 counties saw a rise in COVID-19 this week - FOX 31 Denver