Jump to content

Menu

At what point would you lock down again?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Terabith said:

Our doctors will not see anyone with anything remotely upper respiratory, or gastrointestinal.  They tell everyone to go to urgent care.  I could get a tele-health appointment with my doctor for a sinus infection, but when I thought I had an ear infection, they said I had to go to urgent care, because ear infection might have been caused by something respiratory, and they aren't seeing people who are sick with potentially contagious ailments.  Which is kind of a nice gig for doctors, but kinda sucky for the urgent care folks.  

Oh; I see what you mean. Yeah, that is tough. I don’t know how my doctor is doing it because I haven’t had anything like that and haven’t actually ever been to the dr for a URI (knock on wood) but the kids’ pediatrician has divided patients between sick and healthy into different clinics. It makes sense not to have potential Covid cases come into the regular clinic. I’d be super upset if I took a healthy kid in for a well child check and we all came home with Covid. We didn’t go to the dr at all except for a couple emergencies until we felt we could do It without unreasonable risk. There does of course need to be some way for people to be seen. Telehalth for those that can is good. And of course, to beat a dead horse, if everyone got vaccinated, this wouldn’t be a big issue for adults. 

2 hours ago, alisoncooks said:

[removed]

I was wondering about you earlier. How are you and your family now? Did your other dd stay negative?

Edited by KSera
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Danae said:

Don’t project your PCP’s ridiculousness onto the rest of the US.  Practices here are seeing people as normal.  Many have a separate waiting area for people with respiratory symptoms, or ask you to wait in your car until called, but people are being seen and treated.

She might mean this (PCP's declining to see patient with URI symptoms), 'cause that's definitely still happening in some communities, but I think she instead means that PCP's aren't treating respiratory symptoms with the treatments that she believes are indicated, which might include non-mainstream treatments, or treatments outside standard practice guidelines.  I think that interpretation fits better with the theme of the posts leading up to this one.  

Perhaps @Halftime Hopewill clarify.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, brehon said:

I don’t know of anyone in my area who can’t see their PCP for URIs. 

 

I’m sorry if the bolded is the case in your area. It is completely different in many of the areas in the US. Doctors are seeing and treating patients for a variety of illnesses, including various respiratory ailments, without issue. There may be additional precautions, but pts are being treated well prior to needing hospitalizations/ICU stays. 

Nope, sorry Brehon. I'll be more clear.  My former PCP and the entire group practice are not treating anyone with any UR symptoms. At all. Period. Don't even think of coming in. Their recommendation is to go get tested and go to the hospital when it becomes necessary.

The gaslighting is the stance that the regulatory agencies have taken that the only outpatient treatments worth considering for limited (restricted) use are monoclonal antibodies, and numerous other deceits, double standards, and inconsistencies that most of us can recite. 

 I've found local doctors who are flying under the radar and using a variety of treatments for high-risk outpatients or for patients who want to be proactive. One of them told my husband he would treat, but husband should know that the treatments are considered off-label, as though that would matter with a novel virus. Ha!  

 

Edited by Halftime Hope
  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, wathe said:

She might mean this (PCP's declining to see patient with URI symptoms), 'cause that's definitely still happening in some communities, but I think she instead means that PCP's aren't treating respiratory symptoms with the treatments that she believes are indicated, which might include non-mainstream treatments, or treatments outside standard practice guidelines.  I think that interpretation fits better with the theme of the posts leading up to this one.  

Perhaps @Halftime Hopewill clarify.

 

 

I clarified in another post, and it's not what you thought, but I thank you for trying. I'm sorry I was unclear in the original post: sometimes one thought follows another too closely.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

One of them told my husband he would treat, but husband should know that the treatments are considered off-label, as though that would matter with a novel virus. Ha! 

I can see saying that as a "CYA" thing. Like, he doesn't know if it helps or hurts, but he can try. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wathe said:

We have this problem here now.  some family practices still aren't seeing patients in person, or are declining to see respiratory illness.  So we end up seeing these people in our over-crowded, understaffed emergency department.  For complaints that really should go to primary care.  The patients wait a long time to have their non-emergencies seen (because, of course, in an emergency department, they get bumped by emergency cases) and then get upset because their "doctor called ahead" and somehow this gives people the idea that I am waiting for them with nothing else to do......

Emerg staff are so very tired.

I'm so very sorry, Wathe.  Since the beginning, I've done everything I can to keep from adding to medical personnel's burden. Frontline medical people caring for patients have my respect and gratitude.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Not_a_Number said:

I can see saying that as a "CYA" thing. Like, he doesn't know if it helps or hurts, but he can try. 

I agree, even though I wouldn't have phrased it that way. But then again, I don't know all the considerations in his mind.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KSera said:

Genuine question, not baiting, but so far no one has answered this and I’m genuinely curious: how do you look at the statistics that of the ~10,000 Covid deaths last month in the US, less than 1 % were vaccinated and more than 99% were not? Does that make you question whether it’s still wise to be discouraging vaccination? because that means in the next month it’s going to be another 10,000+ unvaccinated people who will die who would have lived had they been vaccinated.


1) I still don’t know how the statistics are being looked at — last I have looked into it the PCR is set different for unvaccinated versus vaccinated people, and the definitions of cases are different. Until it’s an apples to apples straightforward comparison I do not conclude a whole lot from that

1.5) are people who are unvaccinated dying “of” or “with “ Covid? 

2) the way I look at the alternative treatments — that generally were and are still being discouraged by the pro vax crowd — of around 500,000 people who died around 80% or 400,000 could have been saved   — or at least not died of Covid

and looking forward, 80% of unvaccinated dying of Covid - if they really are dying of Covid—should also be preventable if the alternatives are widely used ... so that would save around 8000 per month 

 

2.5) plus if ptb avoided putting sick people into nursing homes to infect well ones that would have helped a great deal ... I hope that’s not still happening 

 

3) I am concerned that the long term effects of the “vaccines” (yes, in quotes!) will be worse than what would have been if there had been no “vaccine” (1% worldwide deaths estimated even if treatments were denied— which is horrible, but far less bad than that if early treatments were given)   ...   What will be the long term effects of the vaccines? I don’t know.  What I’m seeing of adverse effects certainly seems worse than what I am seeing of Covid itself at this point
 

4) somewhat similar animal vaccines had excellent short term results and devastating long term results ... will this be like that too? I don’t know.   It’s early days still. 


5) death rate from cv 19 for children is supposed to be around 0.005% as per recent UK stats I saw - it doesn’t take a lot of deaths from vaccine to exceed that  — it is children I am most concerned about at this point

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I clarified in another post, and it's not what you thought, but I thank you for trying. I'm sorry I was unclear in the original post: sometimes one thought follows another too closely.  

My mistake, I missed the other post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

 I've found local doctors who are flying under the radar and using a variety of treatments for high-risk outpatients or for patients who want to be proactive. One of them told my husband he would treat, but husband should know that the treatments are considered off-label, as though that would matter with a novel virus. Ha!  

Are you talking about treating patients with ivermectin and HCQ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2021 at 1:15 AM, KSera said:

It’s not that I think no one should try ivermectin, it’s that the people who advocate ivermectin for all by and large are also spreading false information about vaccines and discouraging people from getting vaccinated. It’s possible we will eventually find that ivermectin does indeed help (we still have not much in the way of large, well controlled trials to indicate that), but we KNOW that the vaccines prevent nearly all Covid deaths. Ivermectin does not. Maybe it will help, but discouraging vaccine while saying ivermectin is a miracle cure is irresponsible and is causing many deaths. That’s the issue I have with it. 
 

As an aside, as far as historical use of ivermectin goes, the dosing for an oral medication for parasites in the intestinal track will be different than for a virus in the respiratory system that will need to be reached via reaching sufficient blood stream concentrations. 

As I was re-reading, I thought the bolded was an interesting thought. It's the opposite of my experience, and I guess it depends on who you are listening to. Nearly all the COVID info I consume is from doctors, who are all (generally speaking) pro-vaccine. Most of them have been COVID vaxxed, but they are alarmed looking at data from VAERS and other "vigilance" systems data. (Something I didn't know until recently: European vaccine data collection systems seem to use vigilance in the names fairly frequently.) Many of these doctors are treating patients with adverse effects from the vaccines. 

So those I'm listening to are pro-vax AND pro-early treatment with anything that doctors find that works for their particular patient population. But these doctors are also acknowledging that something in the vaxxes is causing inordinately high adverse effects.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Are you talking about treating patients with ivermectin and HCQ?

Yes, but like I said, they are using drugs in combination or sequentially, and they use differing things based on their clinical judgement for each patient. I haven't circled back in several months to see if any are now using specific, published protocols, but that's precisely what all the outpatient protocols recommend.

One of our local docs who is fairly well known has used HQC and inhalers pretty much exclusively, even to treat patients who are "late" (having trouble breathing and hypoxic) although some of the patients have also needed home oxygen. With over 1600 patients treated, this particular doc has had two, yes, two (2) go to the hospital.  

This is not a doc I plan to go to for reasons that are my own, but that's just one example. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So can I ask, gently, if those of you who are so unconvinced about ivermectin have even looked at the data? Have you read any of the meta-analyses or looked at any of the forest plots? Are you aware that there is already enough data out there to call the ball? More studies are not needed except to optimize treatment protocols. Not treating is unethical with everything we know.

Have you read the studies on the massive differences in transmission within families treated or not treated with ivermectin? looked at the pre-exposure prophylaxis studies? 

Did you know that ivermectin was approved for use in scabies by the WHO on the basis of two small studies that showed far lower efficacy than the large amount data for treating COVID is showing? They approved it for scabies on the basis of much less data than what we have for using it to treat COVID, yet they stand by an say it's not recommended.  And people die. 

Are you aware that remdesevir was approved for an EUA on a single trial that showed a 2 day shorter duration/resolution of symptoms, but no difference in mortality. Yet with that very same result, ivermectin was declared NOT to work in the Cali, Colombia study. Are you aware of the laundry list of fatal flaws in the Cali study, the widely-publicized JAMA study that purported to show that ivermectin isn't effective? The dosing errors, the uncontrolled-for-confounders, the conflicts of interest, the poor study design that led to a change in endpoints, that rendered the study underpowered?  It's as bad, if not worse, than the Lancet debacle! 

If you are not aware of all this, you might be interested in knowing more...or maybe not.  

To get back on track with this topic, if I had young children, I'd resume life with as much reasonable caution as I could use that wouldn't keep us out of activities, but not without finding a medical professional to treat early if needed. Locking down and sidelining from an active, social life is no longer acceptable to my family. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

But they did see  you with respiratory stuff and would have seen you even if you did telehealth.  You have a highly contagious disease.  Their protocols reflect that. 

Please delete the quote. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KSera said:

I was wondering about you earlier. How are you and your family now? Did your other dd stay negative?

Hi. Thanks, we're all mostly back to normal. Youngest DD remained negative (4 PCR tests). 

(Would you mind editing out my quote? I removed the post.)

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

22 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

So can I ask, gently, if those of you who are so unconvinced about ivermectin have even looked at the data? Have you read any of the meta-analyses or looked at any of the forest plots? Are you aware that there is already enough data out there to call the ball?

Yes, I have. Not super recently, but last I checked there wasn't really good quality data from places I thought of as reputable, and there weren't large placebo-controlled trials. 

I don't believe in meta-analyses, period, so I just don't care about those. That's not a stance about this particular drug, it's just my stance in general. 

Do you have a study you find particularly compelling? As I said, I haven't looked seriously for some number of months. If there are studies I should look at, I'd love them linked up, and then we can discuss. 

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

OK, here's what quick Googling pulled up: 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485

Here are some quotes:

Quote

In the 11 trials (totaling 2,127 patients) that focused on moderate or severe infection, there was a 56% reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.77, P=0.004), with 3% of patients on ivermectin dying compared with 9% of controls.

That seems positive! 

 

Quote

Many studies included in the analysis were not peer reviewed, which was a limitation; additionally, studies varied widely in terms of dosage, treatment duration, and inclusion criteria. Studies also included a range of comparators, including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, standard of care, and placebo.

The authors concluded that their results "need to be validated in larger confirmatory trials" -- a fact that David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, who has been interested in evaluating ivermectin for COVID-19 outpatients, agreed with.

Right. Exactly. When you mix up such a wide range of studies, it can be VERY hard to know what exactly you're seeing. 

For the record, I wouldn't be surprised if ivermectin did turn out to be useful, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. This is all encouraging data, but it's very very noisy. I hope it does work, because that would be awesome. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking everyone, has Delta taken hold in your state/county yet?   The latest data I have is from 7-8 so not super up to date, but we had 83 confirmed cases of Delta in our State so far.  I am wondering what that number of Delta is this week?  Are the rising numbers in our state from Delta or the holiday? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mommyoffive said:

Asking everyone, has Delta taken hold in your state/county yet?   The latest data I have is from 7-8 so not super up to date, but we had 83 confirmed cases of Delta in our State so far.  I am wondering what that number of Delta is this week?  Are the rising numbers in our state from Delta or the holiday? 

I think Delta has taken hold in NYC. 

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

I don't generally review primary data myself, unless it is a topic of particular interest (I looked at the mRNA vaccine trial data quite closely, for example) because it is absolutely impossible to read the primary data on everything and still have time to practice.

I rely on professional medical reviewers who are vetted, and who cite primary sources (so I can check up on them from time to time) .  For covid, UpToDate is one of my favourites. It's a professional reference resource that is $$$$ to subscribe to, but has made its covid pages free to all during the pandemic. The Ontario Covid-19 Science Advisory Table is my favourite local covid resource. These types of resources look at data through an individual patient lens and also a public health/systems lens. They know what they are doing with respect to critical appraisal of evidence.  For what it's worth,  both recommend against Ivermectin*.

ETA I know some of the Ontario Science table people IRL.  They've earned my trust - they are Very Smart People who Know What They Are Doing.

*ETA again except in very specific circumstances of covid, immune compromise and strongyloides co-infection - but in that case the ivermectin is to treat the parasite, not the covid.

Edited by wathe
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wathe said:

TA I know some of the Ontario Science table people IRL.  They've earned my trust - they are Very Smart People who Know What They Are Doing.

Thanks for the recommendation! I always like hearing about people who are worth listening to. Sometimes all the opinions get overwhelming... 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Thanks for the recommendation! I always like hearing about people who are worth listening to. Sometimes all the opinions get overwhelming... 

They are the group our provincial government is supposed to listen to for advice......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Asking everyone, has Delta taken hold in your state/county yet?   The latest data I have is from 7-8 so not super up to date, but we had 83 confirmed cases of Delta in our State so far.  I am wondering what that number of Delta is this week?  Are the rising numbers in our state from Delta or the holiday? 

As of Monday Delta was only 5% of new cases in Minnesota.

 

[Edit:  12%.  The article saying 5 was published on Monday but was already out of date.]
 

 So the fact that we haven’t started trending up yet might not be entirely due to our high vaccination rate.  We just haven’t hit the Delta surge yet.  😞

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

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

What do they do instead? 

They sometimes listen, sometimes don't.  And sometimes listen selectively.

They listened very poorly prior to and in the early days of our disastrous 3rd wave.  I think they learned their lesson.

We're now in the midst of a very cautious, phased re-opening.  They've been listening nicely this time around..

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

49 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

What do they do instead? 

Most famously, as the third wave was really heating up in April, the science table advised paid sick leave, limiting mobility, closing all but essential workplaces, expediting vaccination of essential workers.  The government ignored Science Table recommendations, and instead closed playgrounds and increased police powers. There was quite a brouhaha over that.

Edited by wathe
  • Confused 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Teaching3bears said:

Are they developing a vaccine against the Delta variant or tweaking the current vaccine to be more effective against it?

As the UK is planning a booster for over-50s in the autumn, I  believe that they are tweaking it for that purpose. I heard Sarah Gilbert of Oxford talking about continuing work on improving the vaccine.

Eta @Pen The balance of risks for children is actually something that is being considered carefully in the UK. Currently no vaccine has been authorised for general use in under-18s. 

@mommyoffive the UK is at 99 percent Delta.

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Asking everyone, has Delta taken hold in your state/county yet?   The latest data I have is from 7-8 so not super up to date, but we had 83 confirmed cases of Delta in our State so far.  I am wondering what that number of Delta is this week?  Are the rising numbers in our state from Delta or the holiday? 

I don’t know if we count but we seem to be seeing much faster transmission and shorter periods of contact for transmission.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Here are some serious adverse affects that have been reported for ivermectin: 

https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0009354

Of course, since it's often used in Africa, reporting is much sparser than it is with vaccines used in rich countries... 

For those reading casually and not clicking on the links, I'll point out that the adverse events cited in this study are limited to a very specific population, those infected with loa loa.  The adverse effects are not for the world population in general.  

Good maps of the areas affected by loa loa are here, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21738809/

Essentially, if one is highly infected with loa loa, there is a small chance of a serious side effect of encephalopathies (roughly translated as brain inflammation) when ivermectin is administered and the loa loa parasites begin to die off.  (It's similar in concept to the precautions we are routinely used to observing in veterinary care: before beginning heartworm treatment, dogs are tested for existing heartworm infections.) 

Again, the adverse effects, for the most part, would not/do not appear in people uninfected with loa loa. (There can always be exceptions, but the world has a 40 year track record with ivermectin and it is quite innocuous.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Halftime Hope said:

For those reading casually and not clicking on the links, I'll point out that the adverse events cited in this study are limited to a very specific population, those infected with loa loa.  The adverse effects are not for the world population in general.  

Good maps of the areas affected by loa loa are here, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21738809/

Essentially, if one is highly infected with loa loa, there is a small chance of a serious side effect of encephalopathies (roughly translated as brain inflammation) when ivermectin is administered and the loa loa parasites begin to die off.  (It's similar in concept to the precautions we are routinely used to observing in veterinary care: before beginning heartworm treatment, dogs are tested for existing heartworm infections.) 

Again, the adverse effects, for the most part, would not/do not appear in people uninfected with loa loa. (There can always be exceptions, but the world has a 40 year track record with ivermectin and it is quite innocuous.) 

Yeah, it wasn’t an awesome side effects paper for that reason. I had trouble finding a thorough paper listing the range of side effects and frequency in general, though. Do you happen to have one? The one person in this thread who’s actually used it seems to have found it unpleasant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Danae said:

As of Monday Delta was only 5% of new cases in Minnesota.
 

 So the fact that we haven’t started trending up yet might not be entirely due to our high vaccination rate.  We just haven’t hit the Delta surge yet.  😞

Apparently the info in that article was out of date by the time it was published.  We’re at 12% in Minnesota.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s the list of side effects of ivermectin on webMD:

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details
 

I don’t love these lists, since they include everything but the kitchen sink and don’t include rates. I’m genuinely having trouble finding rates, though.

Here are some quotes:

 

Headache, dizziness, muscle pain, nausea, or diarrhea may occur.

 

Tell your doctor right away if any of these rare but very serious side effects occur: neck/back pain, swelling face/arms/hands/feet, chest pain, fast heartbeat, confusion, seizures, loss of consciousness.

A very serious allergic reaction to this drug is rare. However, seek immediate medical attention if you notice any symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, including: rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face/tongue/throat), severe dizziness, trouble breathing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

OK, here's what quick Googling pulled up: 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93485

Here are some quotes:

That seems positive! 

 

Right. Exactly. When you mix up such a wide range of studies, it can be VERY hard to know what exactly you're seeing. 

For the record, I wouldn't be surprised if ivermectin did turn out to be useful, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't. This is all encouraging data, but it's very very noisy. I hope it does work, because that would be awesome. 

I have heard a number of doctors whose perception of this is the opposite of yours, and essentially it is the heart of a meta-analysis, which can essentially be condensed visually as a forest plot.  The fact that all of these signals are aligning and showing benefit is actually a strength, rather than a weakness.  If you take a bunch of studies, similar in nature, all you are doing is replicating results. When there is such variation in treatment timing, dosing, duration, and precise form of the medication given, it points one in the direction of real efficacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Here’s the list of side effects of ivermectin on webMD:

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details
 

I don’t love these lists, since they include everything but the kitchen sink and don’t include rates. I’m genuinely having trouble finding rates, though.

Here are some quotes:

 

Headache, dizziness, muscle pain, nausea, or diarrhea may occur.

 

Tell your doctor right away if any of these rare but very serious side effects occur: neck/back pain, swelling face/arms/hands/feet, chest pain, fast heartbeat, confusion, seizures, loss of consciousness.

A very serious allergic reaction to this drug is rare. However, seek immediate medical attention if you notice any symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, including: rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face/tongue/throat), severe dizziness, trouble breathing.

From the Ontario science advising site that Wathe shared, one of their primary reasons for recommending against ivermectin is that it is apparently in short supply, and people using it for a purpose it hasn’t shown any clear benefit for (Covid) are making it harder to get for those who very much need it for parasitic disease. That makes sense. (And perhaps the Canadian source will help depoliticize people’s suspicions about motivations.) 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I have heard a number of doctors whose perception of this is the opposite of yours, and essentially it is the heart of a meta-analysis, which can essentially be condensed visually as a forest plot.  The fact that all of these signals are aligning and showing benefit is actually a strength, rather than a weakness.  If you take a bunch of studies, similar in nature, all you are doing is replicating results. When there is such variation in treatment timing, dosing, duration, and precise form of the medication given, it points one in the direction of real efficacy. 

I can tell you from the perspective of a math/stats person that it's not how it works. It's very hard to do reasonable data analysis with widely disparate data and it's very easy to be fooled. 

If the studies were actually basically the same, then you'd be replicating results. If you're mixing a wide variety of studies with a wide variety of comparisons and different inclusion criteria, then it's REALLY hard to know what you're seeing. 

In any case, you asked above whether people have looked at the data, and I asked you whether you had a link to a paper you'd like to talk over. I can't really interpret a forest plot, but if you find one of the papers particularly convincing, I'd love to talk it over and see whether I also find it convincing. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

re Delta transmission

12 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Asking everyone, has Delta taken hold in your state/county yet?   The latest data I have is from 7-8 so not super up to date, but we had 83 confirmed cases of Delta in our State so far.  I am wondering what that number of Delta is this week?  Are the rising numbers in our state from Delta or the holiday? 

 

12 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

I think Delta has taken hold in NYC. 

Yes.  I'm with my UWS sister-in-law at the moment, who has a zip code tracker on her watch (!).  The % of total cases that have been confirmed as Delta range from 50-80%.

 

11 hours ago, Danae said:

As of Monday Delta was only 5% of new cases in Minnesota.

 

[Edit:  12%.  The article saying 5 was published on Monday but was already out of date.]
 

 So the fact that we haven’t started trending up yet might not be entirely due to our high vaccination rate.  We just haven’t hit the Delta surge yet.  😞

This is where we were in CT a week ago, but as of yesterday the Delta/total cases %  hit 50%. Yale-New Haven is now messaging around the tagline "you have two paths ahead of you: get vaccinated or get COVID"

 

We always knew we were in a race, vaccinate to herd immunity around the whole globe, or watch helplessly as new variants arose that beat the vaccines.  *At this moment* the existing vaccines seem to be holding *reasonably well* againt *this* variant.

But unless/until we get to herd across the globe... there will be another variant.

We're now at a reprieve, not yet "over."

Edited by Pam in CT
typo
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pam in CT said:

Yes.  I'm with my UWS sister-in-law at the moment, who has a zip code tracker on her watch (!).  The % of total cases that have been confirmed as Delta range from 50-80%.

Oooh. Where did she get it? I could use such a thing. 

Are you on the UWS or is she in CT, by the way? (Or neither?) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

This is where we were in CT a week ago, but as of yesterday the Delta/total cases %  hit 50%. Yale-New Haven is now messaging around the tagline "you have two paths ahead of you: get vaccinated or get COVID"

 

We always knew we were in a race, vaccinate to herd immunity around the whole globe, or watch helplessly as new variants arose that beat the variants.  *At this moment* the existing vaccines seem to be holding *reasonably well* againt *this* variant.

But unless/until we get to herd across the globe... there will be another variant.

We're now at a reprieve, not yet "over."

I’m glad my kids’ camp is over after tomorrow.  We’ll be back to hanging with known vaccinated friends only for the foreseeable future.

Edited by Danae
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Danae said:

I’m glad my kids’ camp is over after tomorrow.  We’ll be back to hanging with known vaccinated friends only for the foreseeable future.

Ugh. I don't know if we should move in that direction. We have kids signed up for outdoor camps in August, too. We've started going to playgrounds. I don't know who I can find who'd be willing to meet only in empty fields or something 😕 . 

It is SO hard to reopen things and then take them away. Much more psychologically taxing than knowing that you're in this for the long haul and setting up structures that make it work. 

I'm going to keep hoping that playgrounds with masks on are OK. Please let them be OK 😕 . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Ugh. I don't know if we should move in that direction. We have kids signed up for outdoor camps in August, too. We've started going to playgrounds. I don't know who I can find who'd be willing to meet only in empty fields or something 😕 . 

It is SO hard to reopen things and then take them away. Much more psychologically taxing than knowing that you're in this for the long haul and setting up structures that make it work. 

I'm going to keep hoping that playgrounds with masks on are OK. Please let them be OK 😕 . 

We’re lucky in that the boys formed a pretty tight group playing online games over the last year and they’re all over 13 and all signed up for shots as soon as they were eligible.  They just had their first in-person gaming session last Saturday.  So limiting to fully vaccinated gatherings isn’t going to feel like pulling back.  
 

It would be a lot harder with under-12s.  I feel for you.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Danae said:

We’re lucky in that the boys formed a pretty tight group playing online games over the last year and they’re all over 13 and all signed up for shots as soon as they were eligible.  They just had their first in-person gaming session last Saturday.  So limiting to fully vaccinated gatherings isn’t going to feel like pulling back.  

It would be a lot harder with under-12s.  I feel for you.

I can't even limit ourselves to only vaccinated people, either, because our group is all homeschoolers, and if I try to put together a group of relatively academic-minded people who are at least care about COVID, they don't all wind up vaccinated -- I can't control that 😕

Crud crud crud. Please let the numbers stay stable enough that I feel OK having DD8's birthday party in a week or so. Please. She's SO excited about it. 

ETA: I am not at all religious, so I don't even know who I'm asking 😛 . I suppose I'm just voicing a desire I have no particular expectation of being fulfilled. 

Edited by Not_a_Number
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Here’s the list of side effects of ivermectin on webMD:

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details
 

I don’t love these lists, since they include everything but the kitchen sink and don’t include rates. I’m genuinely having trouble finding rates, though.

Here are some quotes:

 

Headache, dizziness, muscle pain, nausea, or diarrhea may occur.

 

Tell your doctor right away if any of these rare but very serious side effects occur: neck/back pain, swelling face/arms/hands/feet, chest pain, fast heartbeat, confusion, seizures, loss of consciousness.

A very serious allergic reaction to this drug is rare. However, seek immediate medical attention if you notice any symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, including: rash, itching/swelling (especially of the face/tongue/throat), severe dizziness, trouble breathing.

Look for monographs.  They usually have lists of side-effects, with frequencies, and often quote sources. Ie Merck monograph for Ivermectin

  • Thanks 1
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...