Even Post Fauci, Government COVID Misinformation Won't Stop

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic revealed many concerning aspects of how government functions and how committed individuals and institutions are to maintaining their preferred narratives.

Truth, data, science, evidence…none of it matters relative to the importance of ensuring that the public complies with their desired behavior. Perhaps no single individual was a better representative of the symbiotic relationship between government officials and media members, as well as their commitment to ideological priorities, than Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Fauci's NIAID and its parent organization, the National Institutes of Health, were some of the most prolific spreaders of ideologically motivated misinformation during the pandemic. But Fauci is no longer part of NIH, having departed for the financial rewards of the private sector. 

So things have finally gotten better with government studies and communication, right? Right?

Not exactly.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks about Covid during the White House press briefing on November 22, 2022. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Government COVID Misinformation Continues Unabated

A triumphant, breathless press release from the National Institutes of Health was just released in the past week, covering a new study that claimed a horrifying new conclusion. Getting COVID-19 once is bad, but get it two times? It's terrifying. 

That's their claim anyway, using a massive amount of "health data" on over 200,000 Americans who they believe had COVID at least once over a two and a half year period from 2020-2022.

"Those individuals were originally infected between March 1, 2020-Dec. 31, 2022, and experienced a second infection by March 2023. Most participants (203,735) had COVID-19 twice, but a small number (478) had it three times or more," the study says.

The conclusion, is at first glance, extremely concerning. 

"Using health data from almost 213,000 Americans who experienced reinfections, researchers have found that severe infections from the virus that causes COVID-19 tend to foreshadow similar severity of infection the next time a person contracts the disease. Additionally, scientists discovered that long COVID was more likely to occur after a first infection compared to a reinfection," the NIH summary claims.

That sounds bad right? If you get infected a second time, you're likely to have a severe case of COVID, right?

Except that's not at all an accurate conclusion from the limited data presented. 

"About 27% of those with severe cases, defined as receiving hospital care for a coronavirus infection, also received hospital care for a reinfection. Adults with severe cases were more likely to have underlying health conditions and be ages 60 or older. In contrast, about 87% of those who had mild COVID cases that did not require hospital care the first time also had mild cases of reinfections," the researchers write.

And there's the real story, hidden in plain sight.

We know from years of experience that COVID more significantly impacts those who are in poor health, have underlying conditions or are older AND in poor health. We also know that a very small percentage of COVID cases require treatment in a hospital setting. 

All this study shows is that those who are in poor health, have underlying conditions or are older, are more likely to need more care if they get COVID a second time. Even then, 73% of those who had a second infection and were hospitalized the first time did not need hospitalization for the second infection. Sure enough, the vast, vast majority of those who had mild COVID cases the first time had mild COVID cases the second time.

The protection from natural immunity is highly important and generally durable, though less so when in an individual with poor underlying health. This is nothing new. But it didn't stop the new head of NIH from doing some impressive fear mongering and bad science.

READ: Natural Immunity from COVID More Protective Than Vaccination, New Study Finds

NIH Can't Stop Getting Things Wrong

Dr. Monica Bertagnolli posted a link to the study on X, and a short summary. She repeated the same line about the severity of COVID reinfections, which were intended to undermine the importance of natural immunity.

And more importantly, she said that the results underscore "the importance of preventing infection."

Except that's an impossibility. SARS-CoV-2 is an endemic virus. It will never be eliminated. It will never be stopped. Infection cannot be avoided. Vaccinations don't stop it, masks surely don't stop it, and any public interactions could result in an infection.

There is no way to prevent infection, which is why some countries have now reported that roughly 70% of their population, even with masking and vaccination, have tested positive. Telling those at risk to avoid infection is an irresponsible inaccuracy. So why is it coming from NIH?

Sure enough, these researchers also accidentally made the case for natural immunity. When studying the nonexistent phenomenon of "long COVID," they found that those who had typical, longer lasting effects from viral infections had bigger reactions after their first infection.

"Scientists also discovered that regardless of the variant, long COVID cases were more likely to occur after a first infection compared to a reinfection," the study says.

Because of natural immunity. 

They spent years downplaying it with Anthony Fauci. They continue to undermine it in 2024. But the reality and the science continues to show that natural immunity is protective and durable. Especially for those in good health and younger age groups. Imagine if government agencies had been willing to admit that in 2020 instead of pointlessly locking down all of society to avoid a virus that cannot be avoided.

That would have been the correct evaluation and communication. But since when have government agencies done anything correctly with COVID?