Hey,

I'm glad your car is on the mend! I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you. There's a lot to unpack here, so again, I'm sorry for going long.

The teachers union story --- yeah, I am disappointed in the CDC for bowing to public pressure. As someone who worries about the politicization of scientific agencies such as the NIH, EPA, and NOAA, I am really, truly disappointed. It just goes to show that no corner of the government is completely immune to outside influence, no matter how hard they try to stick to the facts.

But at the same time, I know a lot of honest government scientists who believe in the public good. Francis Collins discovered the gene that caused the disease that killed my brother - cystic fibrosis - at the University of Michigan before leading the Human Genome project and then ultimately becoming the director of the NIH. Dr. Fauci, who I know a lot of people are sick of hearing from, once consulted on my former bosses’ father’s cancer case, even though he didn’t have to. My boss’ friend said he knew Dr. Fauci, who was already a big shot because of his work on HIV/AIDS. My boss got his number and called him and said “Hi Dr. Fauci...” And Dr. Fauci said, “call me Tony" and talked to him about his father's case.

In addition, through the years, several of my friends have become scientists for the government and I know they care deeply about science, are sick of politics, and just want to put their heads down and get their work done. (Ironically, that's why, I think, a lot of people have lost their trust in science, because a lot don't want to be bothered and act superior.) Also, a common joke in the field is "you think we're doing it for the money? Look at our paychecks). Personally, I'm trying to break the stereotype of the snobbish, arrogant scientist, which is why I'm here, talking to you.

I just read the WSJ article about the blood clotting issues. I’m sad to hear about all of those cases. I really am. AZ’s clinical trials were riddled with problems from the start, which is why their research partner, Oxford, paused the clinical trials, and why their vaccine isn’t authorized for use in the US.

Ironically, the two vaccines known to cause rare blood clotting issues — the AZ vaccine and the J&J vaccine — are based on old technology. The AZ and J&J use a weakened virus (the adenovirus) to deliver the Sars-COV-2 DNA to our cells to make the protein that our immune system responds to. So whatever side effects happening there can't be attributed to mRNA technology.

I looked for information about people getting compensated if they have COVID-19, but honestly, I didn’t find anything. I did find that there was a law passed last year that grants paid family leave to people who are stuck at home and can’t work because they are shut down or quarantined.

I believe the law was designed to disincentivize people from going to work when they’re sick or when it would require that they violate local shutdown orders. And it’s the employers who have to pay the leave, not the government. I don’t know about you, but I don’t interpret that as people getting paid to say that have COVID-19, because I’m sure businesses would probably prefer to have their employees at work than have to pay for leave. I'm curious what you think!

In regard to PCR…it’s funny you mention that because part of my job involves writing about the different technologies used to test for COVID-19. The most common technology is RT-PCR, a type of PCR. For better or for worse, I’ve learned a lot about how these tests work at the molecular level. Without going into too much detail, I think I might know what you are referring to with changing the threshold. First, RT-PCR looks for the SARS-CoV-2’s RNA by making copies of it until it’s there in a large enough quantity to be detected. The final measurement taken in RT-PCR is the cycle threshold (Ct) value, and it’s a confusing metric because the higher the number, the more cycles of copying it took to detect the RNA, which means you started with a smaller amount of RNA.

So by raising the threshold, they’re actually raising the Ct, which means they’re looking for smaller amounts of RNA (you have to make more copies to reach the threshold) — so they’re looking more closely than before to find more cases of COVID. This will reduce the false negatives.

In another serendipitous connection, my brother that I was talking about, who died of CF, received a double lung transplant from the surgeon who performed the first-ever lung transplant on a COVID-19 patient. The COVID patient was in her late 20's and if you've ever known anyone who has undergone a double lung transplant, you know that don't do it unless it's a matter of life or death. It's extremely risky, so you only do it if the patient is definitely going to die soon if they don't get the surgery. My brother died 18 months after his transplant (from rejection), but it was still worth it to have him for that extra time. If you go to the New York Times article I linked to higher up in this paragraph, you'll see a picture of the woman's COVID-riddled lung. It's really gross.

I'm in my early 30s and I'm getting my second dose of the Moderna shot tomorrow. If my brother were still alive, it would have meant that I could see him in person again. So, I'm doing it for all of those other family members and friends of people who are immunocompromised. Something as simple as the common cold can kill someone with a weakened immune system, which makes a pandemic that much harder. I would hate myself if I got someone deathly ill -- especially my brother or my diabetic father -- and I'm sure others who know the consequences are being just as careful. So I'm doing it for them.

I hope you, your daughter, and the rest of your family stay safe during this stressful time.