Just subscribed to your newsletter (until now I’ve had the free version). I’m also a subscriber to YLE. I’m not a scientist or medical person. Just a retired person who is very concerned about Covid and other diseases. I appreciate these newsletters because they are not mainstream media catering to political pressures. You are professionals I trust to give me the straight scoop on things. Thank you for providing real and honest professional information in language I can understand! Thanks so much and keep it going. And yes, I would like a regional newsletter in addition to the regular newsletter. I live in Texas, near San Antonio. Take care, and thanks again. — Kathy Collins
I find the comment about mainstream media not being trustworthy puzzling. By and large, they do, or at least try to cover health news accurately. I don't think political pressure has much to do with it. If anything, the bad health information in some media is because there aren't as many science and health journalists with the training to report accurately. Just my thoughts.
In my experience, the reporting depends on the outlet. Some present more background material, others present more commentary that's not always consistent with the facts. Something we learned in trying to communicate with the public is that simply presenting the facts without significant explanation, especially when our understanding of the nature of the information changed significantly, we would find people claiming we'd not been honest in earlier, or subsequent reporting. In fact, in the public health arena I never had been told to do more than honestly deliver the facts as I knew them at the time of the statement (perhaps one of the reasons I'll never be a public information officer), but over time I learned I had to include an explanation of why my position, information and recommendations changed. The media tend to pick a position, in my experience and don't usually have someone trained to follow the rapid-fire changes we saw over the last several years. Force of Infection and Your Local Epidemiologist have excelled in explaining the situations as they arose. YLE, around a bit longer, was the firse to present material at a level the public could understand, but both, because they present material in factual terms but with straightforward explanations, have gained respect from the public who haven't learned the intricacies a pair of well-trained PhDs learned, but who can, and continue to do a stellar job of explanation that's accurate but not necessarily too "techie" for most. This hasn't prevented some people from disagreeing, sometimes in strident terms, nor some threats of violence or worse when presented with a bit of fact that disagreed with a political talking point or talk-show mime.
Both Force of Infection and YLE have consistently presented data I've found credible, and consistent with my own research, and they've frequently had something to say before I had time to compile my own data and write something up. They've explained trends and developments in a manner virtually anyone can understand, and without any hype, and nearly as I can tell, with the sole intent of providing accurate information, completely devoid of a political agenda.
Too many things in mainstream media have a background agenda. In fact, it's nearly impossible to completely divorce one's self from strongly held beliefs. These two scientist-communicators have done a pretty good job of it.
There are a few media experts who, in my opinion, have done a pretty decent job, others who have been less true to their science. Shifts in position are expected as we learn more, but there's now a lot of good science (over 300,000 peer reviewed articles about COVID, perhaps the best-researched viral disease ever in the first 3-4 years since discovery?) and while no one can read all those articles, you can survey a number of them and follow a consistent scientific thread, adjusting as we learn more. Some vocal experts have preferred to form their opinions, and subsequently pick and choose, often from media sources, to support their opinions.
The concern I have is the ability of the pundits who have now decided, and continue to press, that SARS-CoV-2 was of no consequence, stems from their ability to be heard, and that by presenting topically plausible explanations for their position(s) they avoid the problems when presenting all the information available. We're talking about those who demand "proof" by randomized trial when such trials are either impossible to construct, or where their execution would be unethical because they would deny the control group a known advantage already demonstrated by the subject agent. The former is best shown by mask use, where historical data and foreign data demonstrate benefits but gaining both consistent control and treatment groups is nearly impossible. In the latter case, Performing new placebo controlled double-blinded randomized controlled trials on mRNA vaccines poses a direct threat to those who have no innate immunity to the virus (a vanishlingly small number now) who are in the control group, because we have solid evidence of benefit in preventing significant disease and death.
The demands for RCT before introducing any new therapy, save perhaps those favored by the people demanding said trials often is done in the face of education, training and knowledge that their demands sound reasonable to the public, because the public isn't well-versed in how trials work, and what the concerns of medical ethicists may be.
Dr. Rivers has done a better job of making her points than any of the myriad mainstream media sites I've looked at trying to gauge a general feel feel for what people are seeing to get their information. Her information is factual, consistent, focused and well-written for the public. I'll admit the subscribers self-select and generally demonstrate a better understanding of these situations, and an interest in getting more in-depth information than some I've encountered.
I pretty much agree with everything you've said above. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I should add that I think Dr. Rivers does a great job and I wasn't criticizing her. I was responding to Kathy's comment which seems to be a common one about the mainstream media being biased against truth and just about politics. I think sometimes the public doesn't see the difference between editorial and news and that might also be the case of media that doesn't always make that distinction clearly. I'm in Canada, so maybe the idea of being concerned about a "political agenda" is more of an American thing with the polarization of society there. Sadly, it is becoming more like that here, too.
I subscribe to YLE as well. I appreciate both newsletters immensely.
I, too, worry about the rapidly accumulating opinion about COVID being of no consequence. I still wear a mask indoors whenever possible (hard to do it while eating) and I'm a bit put off still about gathering in crowds. But it's not so much that I'm worry about getting COVID. It's more that I don't want to get long COVID. I already have many of they symptoms associated it with it from various health issues and don't need it piling on. I can't understand for the life of me why health professionals aren't wearing masks more except that I can understand wearing a mask all day can be tiring. I have a sweating issue so wearing a mask indoors isn't easy for me. I don't think I could handle wearing it 7-8 hours a day at a job coming into contact with the public.
I would be interested in regional if you added a Canadian region to your report. Right now I read your reports to see the trends in the US assuming the trends will come to us eventually
Glad you recovered from your recent Covid infection and are fine. Our entire family of 4 got covid at the beginning of last month. We all had relatively mild symptoms, and my wife and our 2 sons recovered in 3/4 days and tested negative by day 5. I was fine after 4 days but didn't test negative until day 10.
This was likely due to this was my 1st time getting Covid , while our sons and my wife got Covid back in Jan 2021 (I managed to avoid it).
Very thankful for the vaccines! We've all been vaccinated 5 times and will be getting the new vaccine in late Nov.
I'm also interested in a regional edition. I also subscribe to YLE. I'm a biologist and immunocompromised asthmatic. To counsel extended family members and friends and to make decisions to protect my own health, regional information would be very helpful!
Ms Collins is so correct in her comment on the unflinching tell-it-like-it is approach Force of Infection delivers. In my opinion CDC tells us too little, minimizes the real threat and gives very little timely information on treatment if you test positive, ongoing treatment and its effectiveness. They have spent the last year in Washington minimizing the effects of covid we have seen an explosion of cases in the northeast NY area and the scope of it not mentioned at all by local media except reporters like me who actually the new obfuscated stats by the NY Health Dept now on a 3-day delay. Yes please put out a regional edition and sign the CitizeNetReporter up for it: Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk are up to last January levels of new cases and NYC is affected.
I’m in Capital Region NY, am an immunocompromised public health nurse, just had my first COVID infection (as did 4 of my family members), was quite ill for 3 weeks including a hard rebound, almost went to the hospital. I’ve been pretty annoyed by reading about how mild this supposedly is and minimizing in general. I know FL1.5.1 is the majority in our region (or it was, last I checked.) My husband didn’t have a mild course either. 2 of my family had strep coinfections. Our current wastewater trends are vertical and even just lab confirmed cases have really spiked (and that’s just a fraction of what’s happening.) We also have more hospitalizations for COVID. COVID pneumonia, hypoxia, GI, coinfections with oppportunistic pathogens.
I use the Census regions, of which there are 4. I try to call out specific states when possible but some disease surveillance streams are only reported at the regional level.
Being an evil person I take great schadenfreuda in the significantly greater mortality(bidity) of republicans. Search “party affiliation COVID”. Many studies. I think the map (chart) included confirms this. I’ll search CDC for the county data.
Why do you have Covid 19 listed under respiratory diseases? Covid 19 affects the endothelium which is all over the body and it is why there are so many organs in the body affected by it - heart, kidney, lungs and many other organs. Classifying Covid 19 it under respiratory diseases downplays the impact that Covid 19 can have on the entire body, not just the respiratory tract, and can lead people, who are not aware of its wide ranging impacts, into believing it is only a mild respiratory disease.
Just subscribed to your newsletter (until now I’ve had the free version). I’m also a subscriber to YLE. I’m not a scientist or medical person. Just a retired person who is very concerned about Covid and other diseases. I appreciate these newsletters because they are not mainstream media catering to political pressures. You are professionals I trust to give me the straight scoop on things. Thank you for providing real and honest professional information in language I can understand! Thanks so much and keep it going. And yes, I would like a regional newsletter in addition to the regular newsletter. I live in Texas, near San Antonio. Take care, and thanks again. — Kathy Collins
Everything Kathy said, except that I live in Delaware!
(And yep, I just upgraded, too!)
I find the comment about mainstream media not being trustworthy puzzling. By and large, they do, or at least try to cover health news accurately. I don't think political pressure has much to do with it. If anything, the bad health information in some media is because there aren't as many science and health journalists with the training to report accurately. Just my thoughts.
In my experience, the reporting depends on the outlet. Some present more background material, others present more commentary that's not always consistent with the facts. Something we learned in trying to communicate with the public is that simply presenting the facts without significant explanation, especially when our understanding of the nature of the information changed significantly, we would find people claiming we'd not been honest in earlier, or subsequent reporting. In fact, in the public health arena I never had been told to do more than honestly deliver the facts as I knew them at the time of the statement (perhaps one of the reasons I'll never be a public information officer), but over time I learned I had to include an explanation of why my position, information and recommendations changed. The media tend to pick a position, in my experience and don't usually have someone trained to follow the rapid-fire changes we saw over the last several years. Force of Infection and Your Local Epidemiologist have excelled in explaining the situations as they arose. YLE, around a bit longer, was the firse to present material at a level the public could understand, but both, because they present material in factual terms but with straightforward explanations, have gained respect from the public who haven't learned the intricacies a pair of well-trained PhDs learned, but who can, and continue to do a stellar job of explanation that's accurate but not necessarily too "techie" for most. This hasn't prevented some people from disagreeing, sometimes in strident terms, nor some threats of violence or worse when presented with a bit of fact that disagreed with a political talking point or talk-show mime.
Both Force of Infection and YLE have consistently presented data I've found credible, and consistent with my own research, and they've frequently had something to say before I had time to compile my own data and write something up. They've explained trends and developments in a manner virtually anyone can understand, and without any hype, and nearly as I can tell, with the sole intent of providing accurate information, completely devoid of a political agenda.
Too many things in mainstream media have a background agenda. In fact, it's nearly impossible to completely divorce one's self from strongly held beliefs. These two scientist-communicators have done a pretty good job of it.
There are a few media experts who, in my opinion, have done a pretty decent job, others who have been less true to their science. Shifts in position are expected as we learn more, but there's now a lot of good science (over 300,000 peer reviewed articles about COVID, perhaps the best-researched viral disease ever in the first 3-4 years since discovery?) and while no one can read all those articles, you can survey a number of them and follow a consistent scientific thread, adjusting as we learn more. Some vocal experts have preferred to form their opinions, and subsequently pick and choose, often from media sources, to support their opinions.
The concern I have is the ability of the pundits who have now decided, and continue to press, that SARS-CoV-2 was of no consequence, stems from their ability to be heard, and that by presenting topically plausible explanations for their position(s) they avoid the problems when presenting all the information available. We're talking about those who demand "proof" by randomized trial when such trials are either impossible to construct, or where their execution would be unethical because they would deny the control group a known advantage already demonstrated by the subject agent. The former is best shown by mask use, where historical data and foreign data demonstrate benefits but gaining both consistent control and treatment groups is nearly impossible. In the latter case, Performing new placebo controlled double-blinded randomized controlled trials on mRNA vaccines poses a direct threat to those who have no innate immunity to the virus (a vanishlingly small number now) who are in the control group, because we have solid evidence of benefit in preventing significant disease and death.
The demands for RCT before introducing any new therapy, save perhaps those favored by the people demanding said trials often is done in the face of education, training and knowledge that their demands sound reasonable to the public, because the public isn't well-versed in how trials work, and what the concerns of medical ethicists may be.
Dr. Rivers has done a better job of making her points than any of the myriad mainstream media sites I've looked at trying to gauge a general feel feel for what people are seeing to get their information. Her information is factual, consistent, focused and well-written for the public. I'll admit the subscribers self-select and generally demonstrate a better understanding of these situations, and an interest in getting more in-depth information than some I've encountered.
I pretty much agree with everything you've said above. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I should add that I think Dr. Rivers does a great job and I wasn't criticizing her. I was responding to Kathy's comment which seems to be a common one about the mainstream media being biased against truth and just about politics. I think sometimes the public doesn't see the difference between editorial and news and that might also be the case of media that doesn't always make that distinction clearly. I'm in Canada, so maybe the idea of being concerned about a "political agenda" is more of an American thing with the polarization of society there. Sadly, it is becoming more like that here, too.
I subscribe to YLE as well. I appreciate both newsletters immensely.
I, too, worry about the rapidly accumulating opinion about COVID being of no consequence. I still wear a mask indoors whenever possible (hard to do it while eating) and I'm a bit put off still about gathering in crowds. But it's not so much that I'm worry about getting COVID. It's more that I don't want to get long COVID. I already have many of they symptoms associated it with it from various health issues and don't need it piling on. I can't understand for the life of me why health professionals aren't wearing masks more except that I can understand wearing a mask all day can be tiring. I have a sweating issue so wearing a mask indoors isn't easy for me. I don't think I could handle wearing it 7-8 hours a day at a job coming into contact with the public.
Thanks for all you do.
A regional version would be helpful. I live in Northern CA near the Oregon border.
I would be interested in regional if you added a Canadian region to your report. Right now I read your reports to see the trends in the US assuming the trends will come to us eventually
Same!
Region-specific expert information would be greatly appreciated, especially for those in health care. Thank you for all you do
The National version is fine for me. It's easy enough to view the data for my region. Thanks for all you do!
Glad you recovered from your recent Covid infection and are fine. Our entire family of 4 got covid at the beginning of last month. We all had relatively mild symptoms, and my wife and our 2 sons recovered in 3/4 days and tested negative by day 5. I was fine after 4 days but didn't test negative until day 10.
This was likely due to this was my 1st time getting Covid , while our sons and my wife got Covid back in Jan 2021 (I managed to avoid it).
Very thankful for the vaccines! We've all been vaccinated 5 times and will be getting the new vaccine in late Nov.
I love to hear about people getting all their boosters. I wish more people did the same. I also still wear an N95 indoors. So far, no COVID yet.
I'm also interested in a regional edition. I also subscribe to YLE. I'm a biologist and immunocompromised asthmatic. To counsel extended family members and friends and to make decisions to protect my own health, regional information would be very helpful!
Ms Collins is so correct in her comment on the unflinching tell-it-like-it is approach Force of Infection delivers. In my opinion CDC tells us too little, minimizes the real threat and gives very little timely information on treatment if you test positive, ongoing treatment and its effectiveness. They have spent the last year in Washington minimizing the effects of covid we have seen an explosion of cases in the northeast NY area and the scope of it not mentioned at all by local media except reporters like me who actually the new obfuscated stats by the NY Health Dept now on a 3-day delay. Yes please put out a regional edition and sign the CitizeNetReporter up for it: Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk are up to last January levels of new cases and NYC is affected.
I’m in Capital Region NY, am an immunocompromised public health nurse, just had my first COVID infection (as did 4 of my family members), was quite ill for 3 weeks including a hard rebound, almost went to the hospital. I’ve been pretty annoyed by reading about how mild this supposedly is and minimizing in general. I know FL1.5.1 is the majority in our region (or it was, last I checked.) My husband didn’t have a mild course either. 2 of my family had strep coinfections. Our current wastewater trends are vertical and even just lab confirmed cases have really spiked (and that’s just a fraction of what’s happening.) We also have more hospitalizations for COVID. COVID pneumonia, hypoxia, GI, coinfections with oppportunistic pathogens.
What states are you considering to be "mid-western? I am in Kansas and it seems odd to be lumped in with Ohio and Indiana.
I use the Census regions, of which there are 4. I try to call out specific states when possible but some disease surveillance streams are only reported at the regional level.
hi i am trying to send a gift subscription. but it does not seem to work
antoinette brewster
Hi, if you email me at crivers6@protonmail.com I can help you.
I’m in south Florida and would appreciate any specific info thx
I like regional information but I'm in Canada and I'm guessing you won't be covering that region. :-)
Very interested in a regional newsletter. Very much appreciate your excellent current newsletter!
The map does not contain a legend so it is difficult to ascertain what is higher?
Fixed, thanks
Being an evil person I take great schadenfreuda in the significantly greater mortality(bidity) of republicans. Search “party affiliation COVID”. Many studies. I think the map (chart) included confirms this. I’ll search CDC for the county data.
Why do you have Covid 19 listed under respiratory diseases? Covid 19 affects the endothelium which is all over the body and it is why there are so many organs in the body affected by it - heart, kidney, lungs and many other organs. Classifying Covid 19 it under respiratory diseases downplays the impact that Covid 19 can have on the entire body, not just the respiratory tract, and can lead people, who are not aware of its wide ranging impacts, into believing it is only a mild respiratory disease.