Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, frogger said:

Yes, it makes me curious too. There are many areas at 30-40% and and that means there must be areas well over 70% to even out. I realize the cities also have larger populations which might account for some of it but I have looked at Chicago's rates and it is at 62% for one dose only. Then I had to look at some other major cities but I'm not seeing this kind of Vax rate outside of New York.

I can tell you in my area, there are many zip codes where the uptake for 12 & over is 100 (convinced we have some vacccine tourism going on) or nearly 100% have gotten at least 1 dose. 



 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought this post from Josh Marshall on twitter was interesting, especially the chart from San Diego county: 

It's the first thing I've seen that compares rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people instead of just giving everything as a percentage (i.e. figures like on the right--.0008% of vaccinated people were hospitalized--without giving the same figure for the unvaccinated).  I imagine the numbers aren't entirely reliable for cases because vaccinated people are probably less likely to get tested (and, relatedly, probably less likely to be symptomatic), but it's pretty stark. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kokotg said:

Thought this post from Josh Marshall on twitter was interesting, especially the chart from San Diego county: 

It's the first thing I've seen that compares rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people instead of just giving everything as a percentage (i.e. figures like on the right--.0008% of vaccinated people were hospitalized--without giving the same figure for the unvaccinated).  I imagine the numbers aren't entirely reliable for cases because vaccinated people are probably less likely to get tested (and, relatedly, probably less likely to be symptomatic), but it's pretty stark. 

In May, the CDC also recommend different cycle thresholds for vaccinated and unvaccinated. They also decided to not count a breakthrough case unless it resulted in hospitalization or death. I haven't followed what has happened with this policy since then so it may have changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rebot said:

In May, the CDC also recommend different cycle thresholds for vaccinated and unvaccinated. They also decided to not count a breakthrough case unless it resulted in hospitalization or death. I haven't followed what has happened with this policy since then so it may have changed.

 

Right--there's no nationwide tracking of breakthrough cases (which is frustrating), but some places ARE tracking them--he's been following data from San Diego county and Virginia because they're still tracking breakthrough cases.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh, thank goodness. Of course, this is going to create a THRIVING market in fake vaccination cards 😉 . I better get mine laminated... 

I know you're trying to be funny, but I find this incredibly un-funny.  But you're absolutely right.  So once again, people who are law-abiding get punished and people who cheat get what they want. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, calbear said:

I can tell you in my area, there are many zip codes where the uptake for 12 & over is 100 (convinced we have some vacccine tourism going on) or nearly 100% have gotten at least 1 dose.

We also have a fair number of people from other states being vaxed here.  Not sure if it's because they are college students or what.

On the other hand, apparently our death counts include our states' legal residents who died elsewhere.  As we have sucky winters, a lot of elderly from here go to spend their winters in places like Florida.  So if they died there, it impacts our state's numbers.

It's frustrating that we can't get accurate information for the locations we are in.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am vaccinated for the record and wish there wasn't a lot of misinformation, especially since my loved ones fall for it. My little brother is super high risk as someone with Down Syndrome and I worry about him not being vaccinated for example.

 

I think private businesses should have the right to exclude whomever they want. I do not believe the government should have the ability to mandate it. I think both the NYC mandate AND multiple of the Desantis' mandates should be overturned by the court system. One can only hope the courts will stand up for freedom. Someone needs to. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, frogger said:

I do not believe the government should have the ability to mandate it.

They aren't mandating it, though. They are saying you need to have it to use certain (high risk) places. There are plenty of such laws in place and I don't see why it would be overturned; perhaps it needs a medical exemption or something like that, but I don't see any reason it would be illegal. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

They aren't mandating it, though. They are saying you need to have it to use certain (high risk) places. There are plenty of such laws in place and I don't see why it would be overturned; perhaps it needs a medical exemption or something like that, but I don't see any reason it would be illegal. 

So they aren't requiring private businesses to require it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I think we better make scanned copies of our cards, and then laminate them for protection. Yikes. I totally forgot to do that! Evening project on the list.

Better to print and laminate the copy and get a badge-holder type case for the original so that boosters can be added.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

So they aren't requiring private businesses to require it?  

I assume they are. But who says one has the fundamental right to go to an indoor dining place unvaccinated? That's a public health hazard. I'm going to be MUCH likelier to eat indoors if the people inside have to be vaccinated. I haven't eaten in an indoor restaurant once in 18 months. 

People's right to swing their fist ends at the tip of my nose, you know? No one is MAKING people vaccinate. But they don't have the fundamental right to eat in indoor restaurants, either. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

What's the point of a vaccine card if you can still get and spread Covid at a significant likelihood?

Because it cuts the chances by probably about half? (various figures have been used, lowest is about 40% which is still very significant)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Because it cuts the chances by probably about half? (various figures have been used, lowest is about 40% which is still very significant)

Probably more than that, since that's the figure for the earliest vaccines, and it's not the figure for transmission but for getting COVID at all. (It's possible a smaller fraction of the vaccinated people spread it, since they have virus in their nose for a shorter time.)

ETA: unless we have evidence that this is the real number for Delta, no matter how early the vaccine? 

Edited by Not_a_Number
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Probably more than that, since that's the figure for the earliest vaccines, and it's not the figure for transmission but for getting COVID at all. (It's possible a smaller fraction of the vaccinated people spread it, since they have virus in their nose for a shorter time.)

ETA: unless we have evidence that this is the real number for Delta, no matter how early the vaccine? 

No, you are correct. 

And you are right that they probably transmit for fewer days as well.

So yeah, I don't see how cutting rates by at least half is something to be dismissive of!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

I assume they are. But who says one has the fundamental right to go to an indoor dining place unvaccinated? That's a public health hazard. I'm going to be MUCH likelier to eat indoors if the people inside have to be vaccinated. I haven't eaten in an indoor restaurant once in 18 months. 

People's right to swing their fist ends at the tip of my nose, you know? No one is MAKING people vaccinate. But they don't have the fundamental right to eat in indoor restaurants, either. 

But everyone who walks into that restaurant will be knowingly associating with unvaccinated. If they want to only associate with vaccinated (I believe this is an important right also) they can choose another restaurant. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, frogger said:

But everyone who walks into that restaurant will be knowingly associating with unvaccinated. If they want to only associate with vaccinated (I believe this is an important right also) they can choose another restaurant. 

As a collective action problem, it's hard to expect private businesses to set these rules. They probably won't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rebot said:

🙄One of my good friends lost her mom to Covid. She was in the hospital, on her deathbed. My friend, and her family, are very much listen to what the 'experts' tell her and follow it. I sent her multiple studies showing success rates of using Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid. She begged the doctors to give her mom Ivermectin. The hospital refused saying it wasn't an approved treatment. They knew she wasn't going to make it. They told the family to say goodbye and yet they still wouldn't give it to her.

In order to receive EUA for the vaccine there can't be a successful treatment of Covid. Hence, shutting down all talk of treatments. I struggle to believe that Pfizer, who is expecting over a $30 billion profit this year from the Covid vaccine alone, has my best interest (or yours) at heart. If that makes me a conspiracy theorist, I'll wear my tin foil hat proudly.

 

 

 

Are up you not aware of both the old and new drugs being used to treat covid? It is absolutely not true that all talk of treatments has been shut down, not to mention actual work developing them. 

As for doctors not using your two preferred drugs for treating covid, if they felt they would be effective with acceptable risks for a patient, they would use it off label, approved or not. They are generally not doing so because they actually do have expertise, based on years of education, research, training, and practice.

The idea that the vast majority of healthcare providers fighting this on the frontlines are withholding life saving treatments in order to enrich drug companies and push use and approval of the vaccines is incredibly insulting to people who have devoted their lives to helping others. Not to mention the amount of hubris it must take to think you know more about treating covid than someone like my spouse who has two doctorates and is actually directly involved with treating covid patients. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Covid-19 hospitalizations top 50,000 for first time since February. With the Delta variant, herd immunity will be harder to reach, NIH director says (msn.com)

"In the states with the highest case rates, daily vaccination rates have more than doubled," Zients said Monday.

"The eight states with the highest current case rates have seen an average increase of 171% in the number of people newly vaccinated, each day over the past three weeks," he said.

"Louisiana has seen a 302% increase in the average number of newly vaccinated per day, Mississippi 250%, Alabama 215%, and Arkansas 206%," Zients said.

"Americans are seeing the risk and impact of being unvaccinated and responding with action. And that's what it's going to take to get us out of this pandemic."

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rebot said:

In order to receive EUA for the vaccine there can't be a successful treatment of Covid. Hence, shutting down all talk of treatments. I struggle to believe that Pfizer, who is expecting over a $30 billion profit this year from the Covid vaccine alone, has my best interest (or yours) at heart.

I  definitely see a conflict of interest for drug companies, which is why I look to the greater scientific community, and not what their CEO is saying for the sake of their stock price. But it’s absolutely not true that there can’t be an EUA if there are successful treatments for Covid. There are multiple drugs approved for treating Covid and that have shown varying degrees of success.  And scientists continue researching and looking for more.

53 minutes ago, SKL said:

So people who can't get vaccinated are now on house arrest through no fault of their own.

I actually do think it makes the most sense for private businesses to enact these things on their own, unless or until spread is increasing in an area such that mandates need to be put in place for the greater public health benefit in an emergency. It is one of the jobs of government to keep the populace safe, and if there’s a big outbreak, it’s their job to help stem it. All that said, your statement is super hyperbolic. If I can’t afford to go to a restaurant or join a gym, does that mean I’m on house arrest? Neither of those things is a basic human right. I’ve never been able to afford a gym, and I haven’t felt that that means someone has stripped my rights and freedoms. 

Edited by KSera
Forgot to respond to one of the quotes
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mommyoffive said:

US Covid-19 hospitalizations top 50,000 for first time since February. With the Delta variant, herd immunity will be harder to reach, NIH director says (msn.com)

"In the states with the highest case rates, daily vaccination rates have more than doubled," Zients said Monday.

"The eight states with the highest current case rates have seen an average increase of 171% in the number of people newly vaccinated, each day over the past three weeks," he said.

"Louisiana has seen a 302% increase in the average number of newly vaccinated per day, Mississippi 250%, Alabama 215%, and Arkansas 206%," Zients said.

"Americans are seeing the risk and impact of being unvaccinated and responding with action. And that's what it's going to take to get us out of this pandemic."

Note that Florida is not in the "vaccine rates going way up" category. 

Last I checked we were pretty much stagnant. 

  • Sad 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Frances said:

Are up you not aware of both the old and new drugs being used to treat covid? It is absolutely not true that all talk of treatments has been shut down, not to mention actual work developing them. 

As for doctors not using your two preferred drugs for treating covid, if they felt they would be effective with acceptable risks for a patient, they would use it off label, approved or not. They are generally not doing so because they actually do have expertise, based on years of education, research, training, and practice.

The idea that the vast majority of healthcare providers fighting this on the frontlines are withholding life saving treatments in order to enrich drug companies and push use and approval of the vaccines is incredibly insulting to people who have devoted their lives to helping others. Not to mention the amount of hubris it must take to think you know more about treating covid than someone like my spouse who has two doctorates and is actually directly involved with treating covid patients. 

Quoted For Truth.

I am a frontline HCW who is getting pretty darn cranky and burnt out.

Health care is not McDonald's.  The consumer-driven, customer picks-what-they-want and would-you-like-fries-with-that, where doctors-are-really-just-technicians-who-take-your-orders model that seems to be prevalent in the US (but only for those who can pay) is weird to the rest of the world.

 

  • Like 20
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Frances said:

Are up you not aware of both the old and new drugs being used to treat covid? It is absolutely not true that all talk of treatments has been shut down, not to mention actual work developing them. 

As for doctors not using your two preferred drugs for treating covid, if they felt they would be effective with acceptable risks for a patient, they would use it off label, approved or not. They are generally not doing so because they actually do have expertise, based on years of education, research, training, and practice.

The idea that the vast majority of healthcare providers fighting this on the frontlines are withholding life saving treatments in order to enrich drug companies and push use and approval of the vaccines is incredibly insulting to people who have devoted their lives to helping others. Not to mention the amount of hubris it must take to think you know more about treating covid than someone like my spouse who has two doctorates and is actually directly involved with treating covid patients. 

What I'm implying is that she was literally on her deathbed. There were no other strategies  that the hospital could offer her. According to you, it wouldn't have been acceptable risk to try it? Instead she should die? Because the family had already been told to say goodbye. There are multiple studies showing that there has been some success using these drugs (and others but these are the two that I've followed the most closely) but because of hospital politics they would not allow her to have it. Yes, her doctor fought for her but was turned down by the hospital.

I don't think that healthcare providers are purposely withholding life saving treatments. I do think policies are put into place that are not always in the best interest of the patient. I do think that the healthcare workers that have pushed for alternate care have been mocked, shunned, and discredited. 

🙄 You forgot to call me an idiot well telling me that there is no way that I could possibly be as smart as your husband. Nope, I don't have two doctorates and I don't work with covid patients. What I do have is the ability to look at data and see that ivermectin has been around for years with very few side effects. Does it make sense to not try it when someone is going to die anyway? The family offered to sign that they wouldn't hold the hospital liable for trying ivermectin. As for our healthcare system (not healthcare providers but system) purposely withholding treatments for the vaccine, I just stated that one of the requirements for the FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no other treatment.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, KSera said:

I  definitely see a conflict of interest for drug companies, which is why I look to the greater scientific community, and not what their CEO is saying for the sake of their stock price. But it’s absolutely not true that there can’t be an EUA if there are successful treatments for Covid. There are multiple drugs approved for treating Covid and that have shown varying degrees of success.  And scientists continue researching and looking for more.

I'll admit to skimming most of the the guidance document on FDA approval for an EUA so maybe I missed something but according to B.1.d it states: For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.....

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

I assume they are. But who says one has the fundamental right to go to an indoor dining place unvaccinated? That's a public health hazard. I'm going to be MUCH likelier to eat indoors if the people inside have to be vaccinated. I haven't eaten in an indoor restaurant once in 18 months. 

People's right to swing their fist ends at the tip of my nose, you know? No one is MAKING people vaccinate. But they don't have the fundamental right to eat in indoor restaurants, either. 

Nor do you.  So I don't see how it's the government's job to make sure you get to do so in the exact way you prefer.

Edited by SKL
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ktgrok said:

 

Because it cuts the chances by probably about half? (various figures have been used, lowest is about 40% which is still very significant)

A lot of things I do cut my chances of spreading disease by some percentage.  Is there a work-at-home card?  Ugh this is ridiculous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'll admit to skimming most of the the guidance document on FDA approval for an EUA so maybe I missed something but according to B.1.d it states: For FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.....

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities  

Pretty sure that means you can't give an EUA if there is a fully approved comparable product. So if there is a fully approved vaccine, you won't get EUA for a vaccine. If there is a fully approved drug that does the same thing, you won't get an EUA for your drug, because they can use the fully approved one until yours is finished with testing/approval process. 

I doesn't mean that you can't get an EUA for a vaccine when no fully approved ones exist, but they are using Dexamethasone off label. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, wathe said:

Quoted For Truth.

I am a frontline HCW who is getting pretty darn cranky and burnt out.

Health care is not McDonald's.  The consumer-driven, customer picks-what-they-want and would-you-like-fries-with-that, where doctors-are-really-just-technicians-who-take-your-orders model that seems to be prevalent in the US (but only for those who can pay) is weird to the rest of the world.

 

I'm truly sorry if my wording implied that I don't respect and appreciate everything you have done. I was trying to show that part of the reason that I don't personally trust the vaccine is that it has only received emergency use approval and according to my understanding (which may be incorrect) an EUA won't be granted if there is a preventative or treatment. Numerous studies have now shown that ivermectin (again I keep using ivermectin as an example because I'm most familiar with those studies) can be successful, especially if used early. Yet, it is still not widely used. Why? This is a question for the medical establishment, not for individual healthcare workers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rebot said:

I'm truly sorry if my wording implied that I don't respect and appreciate everything you have done. I was trying to show that part of the reason that I don't personally trust the vaccine is that it has only received emergency use approval and according to my understanding (which may be incorrect) an EUA won't be granted if there is a preventative or treatment. Numerous studies have now shown that ivermectin (again I keep using ivermectin as an example because I'm most familiar with those studies) can be successful, especially if used early. Yet, it is still not widely used. Why? This is a question for the medical establishment, not for individual healthcare workers.

There are drugs that are being used to treat Covid.  Here's one:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-authorizes-covid-antibody-treatment-preventive-after-exposure-n1275737

And from the FDA page:

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/know-your-treatment-options-covid-19

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe the New York mandate will stand up once it's challenged.  It discriminates based on age, religion, nation of origin (maybe they had AZ), and hiv status just to name a few.  Plus, someone who has recovered from a confirmed delta infection ought to be able to use that to get in.  Failing to allow for that gives the appearance of being in bed with big pharma.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'm truly sorry if my wording implied that I don't respect and appreciate everything you have done. I was trying to show that part of the reason that I don't personally trust the vaccine is that it has only received emergency use approval and according to my understanding (which may be incorrect) an EUA won't be granted if there is a preventative or treatment. Numerous studies have now shown that ivermectin (again I keep using ivermectin as an example because I'm most familiar with those studies) can be successful, especially if used early. Yet, it is still not widely used. Why? This is a question for the medical establishment, not for individual healthcare workers.

The biggest study in support of it was withdrawn with suspicions of fraud. There are no RCTs showing effectiveness. That's why. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, rebot said:

What I do have is the ability to look at data and see that ivermectin has been around for years with very few side effects.

Really? Because I was having a ton of trouble finding much data about the rate of side effects in ivermectin, and I did look. Link me up some studies, please.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Oh, thank goodness. Of course, this is going to create a THRIVING market in fake vaccination cards 😉 . I better get mine laminated... 

Actually, I heard that we're not supposed to laminate the original because a booster would need to be added to the same card. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'm truly sorry if my wording implied that I don't respect and appreciate everything you have done. I was trying to show that part of the reason that I don't personally trust the vaccine is that it has only received emergency use approval and according to my understanding (which may be incorrect) an EUA won't be granted if there is a preventative or treatment. 

Your understanding is incorrect.  And it’s also illustrative of your comment earlier.  No one has said you’re “an idiot” or “couldn’t possible be as smart as” someone with multiple medical degrees.  But you are not as informed in this particular area, and so your interpretation is wrong.

Experts aren’t experts because they’re smarter, they’re experts because they have more time on topic. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

The biggest study in support of it was withdrawn with suspicions of fraud. There are no RCTs showing effectiveness. That's why. 

I'll accept that. Here's the thing, I'm not even fighting for it to be a treatment. It seems like most people on this thread agrees that it shouldn't be used even though there have been numerous anecdotal studies completed and a few clinical trials waiting for peer review. Yet, they want people to receive a vaccine (Pfizer) that isn't set to complete phase III trials until the end of 2022.

How is it ok to not use the a treatment that hasn't been fully tested but it is ok to use a vaccine that hasn't been fully tested?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Really? Because I was having a ton of trouble finding much data about the rate of side effects in ivermectin, and I did look. Link me up some studies, please.

I'll link them tonight. I have multiple pages of links to studies that I never organized. I'll have to dig through them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

As a collective action problem, it's hard to expect private businesses to set these rules. They probably won't. 

It's not a won't, it's a can't. It's too dangerous if they do. If they want to enforce vaccine requirements  (or masks) the business needs a bouncer at the front door who will enforce their rules, which could be risking the lives of their employees. In TX, HEB (a very large grocery chain) required masks in part due to public pressure. However, when Abbott said any entity receiving state support couldn't require masks, it became too dangerous for the non governmental businesses to require them, so they suggested people wear masks. The police wouldn't back up the businesses who wanted to continue requiring masks. 

  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Danae said:

Your understanding is incorrect.  And it’s also illustrative of your comment earlier.  No one has said you’re “an idiot” or “couldn’t possible be as smart as” someone with multiple medical degrees.  But you are not as informed in this particular area, and so your interpretation is wrong.

Experts aren’t experts because they’re smarter, they’re experts because they have more time on topic. 

My being an idiot was a reference to my original post in this thread stating that anyone with opposing views is labeled that way. I'm not referring specifically to this thread but in general. 

I absolutely agree that experts are experts because they have more time and dedication to a topic. Here's the thing, I use to be able to read the opinions of multiple experts, compare and contrast their opinions and reference the data they provided. Since Covid, I have found that if an expert has a differing opinion they are discredited and their opinions/studies are extremely hard to find. I'm an engineer, not a doctor, so although I don't have a medical education, I do feel that I accurately understand a data set. My issue is that the numbers are not always provided. People want me to have blind faith in what an expert says without giving me access to the data that they determined their recommendations from.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rebot said:

What I'm implying is that she was literally on her deathbed. There were no other strategies  that the hospital could offer her. According to you, it wouldn't have been acceptable risk to try it? Instead she should die? Because the family had already been told to say goodbye. There are multiple studies showing that there has been some success using these drugs (and others but these are the two that I've followed the most closely) but because of hospital politics they would not allow her to have it. Yes, her doctor fought for her but was turned down by the hospital.

I don't think that healthcare providers are purposely withholding life saving treatments. I do think policies are put into place that are not always in the best interest of the patient. I do think that the healthcare workers that have pushed for alternate care have been mocked, shunned, and discredited. 

🙄 You forgot to call me an idiot well telling me that there is no way that I could possibly be as smart as your husband. Nope, I don't have two doctorates and I don't work with covid patients. What I do have is the ability to look at data and see that ivermectin has been around for years with very few side effects. Does it make sense to not try it when someone is going to die anyway? The family offered to sign that they wouldn't hold the hospital liable for trying ivermectin. As for our healthcare system (not healthcare providers but system) purposely withholding treatments for the vaccine, I just stated that one of the requirements for the FDA to issue an EUA, there must be no other treatment.

 

 

 

It’s not according to me, it’s according to her doctors. They have ultimate responsibility for the patient, so it is their call as to whether or not to prescribe a drug. Do you think doctors should prescribe everything a family member or patient requests? Where does it end? Why even bother with doctors then and not instead just push for all drugs to be OTC?

 And what you said about shutting down exploration of treatments is simply not true. Not to mention the treatments that are already being used. How did they come about if all exploration of treatments was shut down?

I don’t call people names and I said nothing about your level of intelligence. I was merely pointing out that all of the “experts” you disagree with have years of education, training, research, and practice, including many with actual covid patients. So I simply don’t think that compares to a layperson reading some journal articles and deciding they know the best course of treatment for covid. And it is insulting to them to insinuate they are purposely withholding a supposedly life saving drug for whatever nefarious reasons you think they are doing so.

I am curious though as to why your focus on two particular drugs? Have you done as much research on the drugs currently being used for treatment? Do you agree or disagree with their use? Have you extensively researched other possible drugs and ruled them out?

Edited by Frances
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'll accept that. Here's the thing, I'm not even fighting for it to be a treatment. It seems like most people on this thread agrees that it shouldn't be used even though there have been numerous anecdotal studies completed and a few clinical trials waiting for peer review. Yet, they want people to receive a vaccine (Pfizer) that isn't set to complete phase III trials until the end of 2022.

How is it ok to not use the a treatment that hasn't been fully tested but it is ok to use a vaccine that hasn't been fully tested?

What do you mean about “completing” a trial? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'll accept that. Here's the thing, I'm not even fighting for it to be a treatment. It seems like most people on this thread agrees that it shouldn't be used even though there have been numerous anecdotal studies completed and a few clinical trials waiting for peer review. Yet, they want people to receive a vaccine (Pfizer) that isn't set to complete phase III trials until the end of 2022.

How is it ok to not use the a treatment that hasn't been fully tested but it is ok to use a vaccine that hasn't been fully tested?

This process has shown how problematic meta analysis can be.  Especially when we're looking a disease where most aren't dying.  We don't have a peer reviewed double blind study or 2 or 3 showing clear benefit.  We do have a peer blind study very large study with ever more data available in the vaccines.  When something has solid data that shows it would be worthwhile in emergency use situations, they do come available.  I think it is highly unlikely that thousands of HCW are intentionally holding back treatment options that would have clear benefit.  There are a number of therapies being used broadly that have better data (antibody treatment, steroids, regeneron, etc).  

Meta analysis does not equal peer reviewed double blind study.  A meta analysis might be the basis for funding some double blind studies.  The small double blind studies out now on ivermectin are not showing clear benefit.  There are still studies running.  I'd be happy to be wrong.  

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'll accept that. Here's the thing, I'm not even fighting for it to be a treatment. It seems like most people on this thread agrees that it shouldn't be used even though there have been numerous anecdotal studies completed and a few clinical trials waiting for peer review. Yet, they want people to receive a vaccine (Pfizer) that isn't set to complete phase III trials until the end of 2022.

How is it ok to not use the a treatment that hasn't been fully tested but it is ok to use a vaccine that hasn't been fully tested?

Because there’s a difference between a treatment being approved for one thing that it has been shown to work for (parasites) vs for another thing than it hasn’t been (covid19). I’d love to find out ivermectin works. I’m highly motivated to not get Covid and to recover well from it if I do. I take vitamin D and I have zinc on hand. Heck, I even have ivermectin because we have horses. But, unfortunately, so far there is no reliable data showing it works, and the two biggest studies used to base its supposed effectiveness off of have both been withdrawn due to significant issues (including outright fraud in the case of the Egyptian study). Maybe the Oxford one will finally show something. 

Additionally, I’m not particularly concerned about the final, long term stage of the vaccine trials not being complete, because we have an absolutely unprecedented amount of data on it at this point, more than we usually ever have before a drug gets full approval, and we are in the middle of an acute crisis where we need treatments now, and there is no history of any vaccine having negative outcomes that don’t show up until a year later. So, I’m far more concerned about the immediate outcome of deaths from Covid than of some potential mystery outcome that we have never seen happen before. It’s like the fire extinguisher cartoon that Katie  recently shared.

28852E80-F4CF-4523-B1B8-4AEEA152AAAE.jpeg
 

eta: with my older kids, I did have a lot of worry that they would end up with some kind of auto immune diseases due to too many vaccines, and it made me cautious and caused me to spread out vaccines and delay some. In the end, at this point, I think my concern was unfounded. FWIW. And now they have extras to catch up on and wish they had gotten them when they were younger. So, I do understand that concern, but I come from the viewpoint of someone who had that concern and now feels that concern was not based on anything that is actually happening.

Edited by KSera
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...