Mark Ungrin
banner
mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Mark Ungrin
@mark-ungrin.bsky.social
Parent. Interdisciplinary biomedical researcher. Hardline scientist. PhD (Medical Biophysics, Cellular & Molecular Biology). Faculty. New platforms and real-world impact, emphasis on scientific rigour, reproducibility and efficiency. Diverse interests.
...inadequate research training means public health decision makers don't understand why primary sources are required in science, and are fond of mindlessly parroting what their peers in other jurisdictions have decided.

Don't trust low #longCOVID cost estimates coming out of Canada, they're junk.
Meanwhile in Canada...

AFAICT the reason provinces are cutting back on COVID vaccines is that the economic models underlying national guidance 👉forgot to count COVID cases that don't require medical attention when projecting #longCOVID costs👈

This is RFK-level bullshit.

Amateur hour.
OK took a look at another one of the NACI references, #22: www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

I just have a minute but this looks seriously sketchy.

#1: 👉why can't I find an overall COVID incidence rate?👈 Did they really only count "medically attended" cases (p17) - so e.g. 7.5% annual incidence?
November 22, 2025 at 5:21 PM
You probably have these already but just in case not.

Also...
From populists on the right, but also from establishment figures desperate to bury their responsibility, there's an ongoing push to bury the harms of COVID.

Long COVID alone costs 7M life-years (QALYs) and on the order of a trillion dollars a year in the OECD.
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issue...
November 22, 2025 at 5:21 PM
This is what really requires action. IPC sacrificing patients to cover up their mistakes is bad enough. But the professional bodies that feel that's good enough to meet their standards of medical ethics?

Self-governance for the medical profession needs to end. It's neither deserved nor justified.
November 22, 2025 at 8:45 AM
Meanwhile in Canada...

AFAICT the reason provinces are cutting back on COVID vaccines is that the economic models underlying national guidance 👉forgot to count COVID cases that don't require medical attention when projecting #longCOVID costs👈

This is RFK-level bullshit.

Amateur hour.
OK took a look at another one of the NACI references, #22: www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

I just have a minute but this looks seriously sketchy.

#1: 👉why can't I find an overall COVID incidence rate?👈 Did they really only count "medically attended" cases (p17) - so e.g. 7.5% annual incidence?
November 22, 2025 at 8:36 AM
That or I suspect word will come down from Moscow, someone will issue a few orders, and all of a sudden the records will show that all of these accounts have always been registered in 'Merica...

Digital history is convenient that way.
November 21, 2025 at 10:58 PM
And that behaviour isn't just restricted to global-level actors. Anyone with money (their own, or someone else's) can hire a bunch of bots to try and launder their reputation, manipulate you into buying whatever it is they're selling, rewrite the past, or convince you of things that aren't true.
Hah! The internet is forever!

Stolen from @lidsville.bsky.social over at the Bad Place, back in 2022.

It's like someone forgot an i++ in their for loop, so a bot wasn't cycling through the different sock puppet accounts "spontaneously" praising Dr Henry.

I wonder what PR firm handled that?
November 21, 2025 at 10:56 PM
IMO "the Inquiry has not seen evidence of any specific campaigns..." prior to 2021 bit speaks volumes.

A great many of the guilty parties have tried to have it both ways, doing nothing, but quietly laying the foundations to say "I always knew" when the denial becomes unsustainable even in medicine.
Dr Henry appears to be trying to hide a few minimalist admissions in various places to prepare for future rewriting of history, but she's also forbidden BC institutions to accept the need to mitigate aerosol transmission.

She's still killing people, just protecting her CV.

bsky.app/profile/mark...
BC's Dr Henry & BCCDC just released a report dated December 2024 (but if you check the "cited" data in the references the information hasn't been updated in two years) quietly 👉admitting COVID is airborne and transmitted in aerosols.👈

H/T @notatmypicnic.bsky.social

www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/h...
November 21, 2025 at 7:02 PM
💯 - key is recognizing the false binary power-grab framing around COVID. Both the anti-vax / RFK pseudoscience types on one end and the anti-PPE / IPC pseudoscience types on the other tried to claim they were "speaking for science", but neither had any interest in learning from actual scientists.
A reminder to reporters: be thoughtful about the voices you trust, and the conflicts of interest they hold.

You can't rely on the judgment or motives of someone who participated in a very big mistake that killed a lot of people to tell you how bad the consequences are later.

Journalism 101.

🤨
November 21, 2025 at 6:54 PM
hah yes, just posted that!

Interestingly, docs in non-wealthy countries and vets also have a better understanding of airborne transmission than IPC / public health. I suspect their real-world experience and relative lack of treatment resources force them to be more thoughtful about prevention.
November 21, 2025 at 6:21 PM
By senior I mean "seniority" rather than "older". In my experience actual front line docs are often well ahead of the ones in medicine's management class. Here's the British Medical Association, for example.

Still disappointed in how few have stepped up and publicly challenged the screwups though.
BMA opening statement to the UK Covid-19 Module 2
The BMA continues to ensure that doctors’ experiences during the pandemic are heard and learnt from. We are actively contributing to the UK Covid Inquiry to ensure that crucial lessons are learned and...
www.bma.org.uk
November 21, 2025 at 6:16 PM
This paper goes into more detail on why infection control and public health leaders in 2020 were close to a century out of date on how infections are transmitted in aerosols. Mechanistic science training is inadequate in many medical programs.

The errors would be funny, except for all the death.
What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID‐19 pandemic?
The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by droplets or aerosols has been highly controversial. We sought to explain this controversy through a historical analysis of transmission res...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 21, 2025 at 6:12 PM
The information that could have stopped the pandemic in 2020, that Dr. Morawska was desperately trying to teach WHO infection control leaders in 2020, was known for 👉84 years👈 before these events (documented in @carlzimmer.com's excellent book AIR-BORNE):

(figure: academic.oup.com/aje/article/...)
November 21, 2025 at 6:05 PM
NB this is not just a UK thing. Here's what UBC was teaching medical students up until mid 2024 (when they removed 👉the explanation only👈 after I let them know how badly out of date they were).

The apprenticeship model cannot process science that conflicts with received wisdom from senior docs.
You laugh, but these people live in a totally different world already. Everything is memorized special cases and they just don't get the concept of mechanism at all. This is what UBC (in Henry-land) has been teaching its med students for years 👉in their PPE training👈 - no wonder they're clueless:
November 21, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Reposted by Mark Ungrin
The negligent, outdated beliefs of medicine's management class (everywhere; from the UK inquiry here) contrasted with well-understood science from 👉1934👈. If you got sick after being told that COVID falls to the ground within 3 feet and N95/FFP2/FFP3 respirators aren't needed, 👉it was their fault.👈
November 21, 2025 at 5:25 PM
The negligent, outdated beliefs of medicine's management class (everywhere; from the UK inquiry here) contrasted with well-understood science from 👉1934👈. If you got sick after being told that COVID falls to the ground within 3 feet and N95/FFP2/FFP3 respirators aren't needed, 👉it was their fault.👈
November 21, 2025 at 5:25 PM
"Russia, Russia, Russia" -> yes, exactly
November 21, 2025 at 2:21 PM