S/o Sick Shaming

[TravelingChris]

4 hours ago, happysmileylady said:

Yes that's correct, it is somewhere between 1% and 5%.   And yes, the closer to the "50" end of the spectrum is, the closer to the 5% that person is.   Also, the more pre-existing conditions a person has the closer to the 5% a person is.

 

Generally however, for someone like me...............43, not obese, no high blood pressure, NO other preexisting conditions, I don't take a single medication for ANYTHING............that means my risk of hospitalization is not only close to 1%......it's less than that.   And in actual reality, that played out exactly like the statistics said it would.  Random colds have made me more ill.  Pre-covid, had I had a job, I would have gone to work because I just wasn't that sick.  Migraines....................AND the Relpax side effects were worse.

 

Now, as you know, I am very well aware that that is not the same for everyone.

 

But if someone, individual, is in a similar situation to me......middle age or younger, no pre existing conditions, looks at those stats and says.....hmmm....over 99% of people like me come out just fine...............................................can you see how they would find it reasonable to feel like infection and subsequent quarantine could be a better choice for them? 

 

 

No, in our hospitals there are a lot of 40 year olds.  In fact the highest cases are from 25-50, because this age group thought they would live through COVID easily and didn't get vaccinated.  And yes, there are more 40 somethings than 20 somethings.  But one thing that I keep seeing on various news stories is how the Delta variant is getting a lot of people sick who don;'t have pre-conditions.

[Jean in Newcastle]

People are griping about how expensive medicine is in the US already. Just add more beds?  Do you know how much that will cost?  It’s not just a bed. It’s special beds with special technology. It’s all the other tech and equipment in the rooms. Ventilators. ECMO machines. Other equipment that I don’t even know the name of. Plus ICU nurses need specialized training. You don’t just walk out of nursing school and into an ICU. I am glad that we have them but no, it’s not as simple as “adding more beds”. 
 

Not to mention the human cost. Once someone hits ICU with Covid they are extremely ill. Many don’t walk out again despite heroic efforts by the ICU staff. And even if they do, you don’t just wake up better from ICU and head back to work the next day. It’s a long road to recovery. An expensive road. And an emotionally difficult one for patients and family. 
 

And there is the social cost. Children without a parent. Or parents. Or children with an extremely ill parent and a parent pulled in two directions by the needs of their sick spouse and the children who don’t just stop needing them. Or if it’s a child in the ICU or worse, the consequences to a family of losing a child. The loss of workers in the economy (not nearly as important but still needs to be addressed when so many are more concerned with the economy over human life). The loss of vital people in a church or community. 

[Halftime Hope]

On 8/5/2021 at 7:25 AM, MEmama said:

I suspect HIV is mentioned in connection to COVID in um…certain circles/tv programs as a coded scare tactic. They are, of course, not remotely similar in any way.

Lord, you all are losing the point. I-ve read this thread from the beginning and the only reason the two were used in the same sentence was as an example of shaming the ill. That is all. 

[rebot]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

No, because the outcome of both isn’t equivalent. One way results in ~1% of those infected dying, while the other does not. That’s millions of avoidable deaths in the US alone. That makes it not an advisable strategy. 

Looks like this is a moot point. I just looked and the definition is now changed back to include both natural and vaccine immunity

[rebot]

3 hours ago, TCB said:

I looked at the link and tried to wade through some of the stuff. I have been trying to find some commentary from the pro Ivermectin group concerning the big Egyptian study that has been withdrawn. My understanding is that it played a fairly significant positive role in the meta analyses that are used as evidence for Ivermectin and I was wondering how the withdrawal affected that. Do you have any insight you could share, or any links to comments on it?

I

I think it's a definite blow to ivermectin credibility. The scientists not only used suspect data but plagiarized multiple paragraphs. It's insane that they didn't get called out sooner.

Although we want to believe that scientists are somehow above personal bias, they are only human. When looking at meta analysis studies you can often see that bias showing through. Someone linked a recent CDC study showing that those with natural immunity should get vaccinated for the delta variant. Because this study aligned with her personal belief, it was easy for her to accept. Whereas, when I read it, I read it and noticed what I considered flaws in the study. Since it didn’t agree with my personal narrative, it was harder for me to accept. All of this is basically to say, I think all meta analysis studies need to be read with a critical eye. There are 61 trials listed. If you exclude all meta analysis studies (because I don’t have the time or inclination to try to determine if they used the flawed data or allowed their bias to interfere with the study) there are still 30 randomized trials, of which, only two show negative outcomes.

My opinion, which is not popular on here, is that early intervention was withheld. Why? I have no idea …. money, EUA approval ??? Patients were told to go home and come back if they got worse. Looking at the large 2013 study it concluded "that ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose.” Why wasn’t this (or something else) given to the patient when they were sent home. People are going to say it was because it wasn’t approved for Covid. Gilead submitted a new drug application for Remdesivir in August 2020 and received an EUA from the FDA which switched to full approval in October 2020. Remdesivir must be administered in the hospital, is much, much more expensive, and from the studies I’ve seen doesn’t perform significantly better than ivermectin.

So I question, why was Remdesivir approved when ivermectin has been safely used since 1981, can be administered at home, and is cheap? Maybe it works for someone, maybe it doesn’t, but it’s cheap and generally considered safe. I think that people should have been told the risks and given the option to take it when they were told to go home and tough it out. This isn’t meant to be disrespectful to any healthcare worker but I do feel that the healthcare system did a disservice not at the doctor/nurse level but by those at the top of the food chain.

Wow. That was longer than I expected. Not sure if that was what you were looking for TCB (I don't know how to tag someone) but if my tangent went off in the wrong direction let me know and I can try again.

Edited August 8, 2021 by rebot
spelling

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, rebot said:

So I question, why was Remdesivir approved when ivermectin has been safely used since 1981, can be administered at home, and is cheap? Maybe it works for someone, maybe it doesn’t, but it’s cheap and generally considered safe. I think that people should have been told the risks and given the option to take it when they were told to go home and tough it out. This isn’t meant to be disrespectful to any healthcare worker but I do feel that the healthcare system did a disservice not at the doctor/nurse level but by those at the top of the food chain.

I don’t know if this is the case in the US, but I read a paper out of Canada saying that there is a shortage of ivermectin in Canada and thus unless/until there was indication that it was actually helpful, they didn’t want to be giving it to everyone with Covid when it really needs to be available for those who need it for clear indications it works for,  like parasites.

[lewelma]

54 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Yes. It is true that American hospitals do not have enough ICU beds.

 

But the US actually has more than most OECD countries. Here is a graph of ICU beds per capita for the OECD. Note that the USA is #3 for best, and NZ is second from the bottom.  This is the big reason why back in March last year, the Government decided that they needed to eliminate. The USA has 25.8/100k and NZ has 3.6/100K.

https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/data-insights/intensive-care-beds-capacity

Edited August 8, 2021 by lewelma

[Halftime Hope]

12 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

Fil and mil have covid.  They both began ivermectin and hydrochl yesterday, and fil began monoclonal antibody infusion today.  I’m curious to see how they do.  

I hope they do very well!

[Moonhawk]

I've been following this thread, it's been bit difficult to figure out what I thought on this. Not because I thought shaming was ok, as much as I wasn't sure I knew where the line between telling the truth and shaming were on this topic. And then it seems a lot of this is getting blurred about shaming in pre-vaccine and post-vaccine worlds, which to me looks very different.

To keep myself general, not talking about a particular family, person, situation, or even theoretical:

Pre-vaccine, everyone had the same chances with Covid. Sure, some people had pre-existing conditions, others had to work, some people have unknown conditions, others just tend to get catch anything, some people licked deli counters, others became hermits. These things lessened or heightened chances, but on the whole and especially at the beginning we didn't know that much.

Sick-shaming when really it was all about luck [where you lived, who you saw, what the last person at the gas station did with their snot] shouldn't have been done (I'm sure it was, though I didn't see it on this board). The idea that "no one is safe" should have been taken to heart, and sick-shaming at that stage is bluntly ridiculous. It struck everyone, and while some pre-existing conditions had the chance of making your outcome worse, it was not like having perfect health was a Get Out Of Jail Free card, and so treating people differently based on things that didn't necessarily make a difference isn't sensible and is, in itself, shameful behavior. 

Post-vaccine, we as a society now have the option to get a free lottery ticket to "opt out" of Covid. ~95 out of 100 people will win the lottery. The other 5 are almost assured a consolation prize of mild Covid instead of hospitalization and death. There is maybe 1 out of a different magnitude that pulls a true unlucky lot and will be in the hospital, or die of Covid, post-vaccination. That is sad, that is unfortunate and tragic, but it's down to bad luck at that point, IF they entered the vaccine lottery.

Post-vaccine, people [insert all caveats of no contraindications, age, etc that would prevent vaccination] who are not buying their "vaccine lotto ticket", which is free relatively easy, and helps others around them, are not being given the same grace as the pre-vaccine world because they are choosing to gamble with their life. Sure, a lot of them are going to come out okay: no Covid, asymptomatic, mild case, a bad couple weeks in bed. Some of them are going to have life-altering but not life-stopping cases. And a few are going to die.

So, if people choose not to buy the ticket, well, okay. Except for a few fringe cases and industries they probably will be able to make this choice with no real change to their daily life. Unless they get Covid, obviously.

And if people really want to do "Covid parties" and then isolate until they have naturally occurring immunity [for an unknown amount of time], I suppose that's their choice, too. Except that has the opportunity to land them in the hospital, much greater chance than getting the vaccine. And studies so far are being mixed as to it's efficacy vs vaccines for re-infection; and, this is probably going to be difficult to pin down because when you get sick you're not really controlling for the viral load, or who gave it to you (sure you went to a Covid party, but maybe you also were on the Subway next to an asymptomatic carrier) or what variation you're exposing to. Whereas the vaccine everyone is getting the same dose, mostly same spacing, etc, that can be quantified and tracked. Plus a certain percentage of people getting it now "for the first time" may have had it before and not known. At the best,  you are paying a higher price for a lotto ticket that might be a knockoff.

So it doesn't have the same end effect as vaccination. This method is only speeding up their odds, not changing them. And now with the Delta variant, those odds are different from what we've become 'comfortable' with.

When you play the odds, you usually do whatever you can to better them for you. Vaccination does that. Covid parties or "take my chances" do not.

I'm not saying that sick-shaming now is okay, but the game as changed, and when you were given a get out of jail free card and chose to tear it up in Mr. Monopoly's face, there is a different set of metrics in culpability. Should they still be given the level of care possible? Yes. Should they be treated with human decency? Yes. Should they be told it isn't their fault and they are just victims of chance? Not really. Should their feelings be coddled when they say they couldn't do anything to avoid it? Not necessary. Can people be blunt that they probably could have prevented this? In the spirit of kindness I wouldn't bring it up, but I wouldn't indulge fantasy woe-is-me either.

Yes, it's treating them differently, and maybe it would be called sick-shaming by some in this thread, but I'm not shaming them for getting a potentially-deadly disease in the middle of the global pandemic, I am just not absolving them of the responsibility they now carry in this scenario. And this isn't even addressing the societal cost that this approach brings. They did not do a simple step available to everyone, and did not use their agency to both save themselves and help out society as a whole. 

[TCB]

10 hours ago, rebot said:

I

I think it's a definite blow to ivermectin credibility. The scientists not only used suspect data but plagiarized multiple paragraphs. It's insane that they didn't get called out sooner.

Although we want to believe that scientists are somehow above personal bias, they are only human. When looking at meta analysis studies you can often see that bias showing through. Someone linked a recent CDC study showing that those with natural immunity should get vaccinated for the delta variant. Because this study aligned with her personal belief, it was easy for her to accept. Whereas, when I read it, I read it and noticed what I considered flaws in the study. Since it didn’t agree with my personal narrative, it was harder for me to accept. All of this is basically to say, I think all meta analysis studies need to be read with a critical eye. There are 61 trials listed. If you exclude all meta analysis studies (because I don’t have the time or inclination to try to determine if they used the flawed data or allowed their bias to interfere with the study) there are still 30 randomized trials, of which, only two show negative outcomes.

My opinion, which is not popular on here, is that early intervention was withheld. Why? I have no idea …. money, EUA approval ??? Patients were told to go home and come back if they got worse. Looking at the large 2013 study it concluded "that ivermectin was generally well tolerated, with no indication of associated CNS toxicity for doses up to 10 times the highest FDA-approved dose.” Why wasn’t this (or something else) given to the patient when they were sent home. People are going to say it was because it wasn’t approved for Covid. Gilead submitted a new drug application for Remdesivir in August 2020 and received an EUA from the FDA which switched to full approval in October 2020. Remdesivir must be administered in the hospital, is much, much more expensive, and from the studies I’ve seen doesn’t perform significantly better than ivermectin.

So I question, why was Remdesivir approved when ivermectin has been safely used since 1981, can be administered at home, and is cheap? Maybe it works for someone, maybe it doesn’t, but it’s cheap and generally considered safe. I think that people should have been told the risks and given the option to take it when they were told to go home and tough it out. This isn’t meant to be disrespectful to any healthcare worker but I do feel that the healthcare system did a disservice not at the doctor/nurse level but by those at the top of the food chain.

Wow. That was longer than I expected. Not sure if that was what you were looking for TCB (I don't know how to tag someone) but if my tangent went off in the wrong direction let me know and I can try again.

Thank you, that is the sort of information I was seeking. I believe there is an RCT being done in the UK at the moment that might yield some good information. 
My understanding was that the benefits of Ivermectin where seen via the meta analyses, I saw that there were positive studies in that list but it seemed like they were mostly very small studies, and that is why I was wondering about the effects of the withdrawal of the Egyptian study. Do you know if any of the more vocal Ivermectin proponents have commented about it?

[rebot]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

Do you know if any of the more vocal Ivermectin proponents have commented about it?

Off hand, I don't know of any. I find that most often the most vocal (from both sides, about anything) are so determined to be right they can't look at the subject objectively and come off sounding crazy.

My reason for being pro ivermectin is based on my perceived risk-benefit analysis. It's been around for a long time. It's been shown to be safe. People are dying so lets try it until something better comes along. There are more and more studies but most of them are small and not peer reviewed.

Here is a person that I have started recently following. I'll warn you that he follows my way of thinking, but he deep dives into all of the data. I like him but there are times I feel dumb because I can't understand his sentences much less follow his data. (You'll see what I mean)

https://unglossed.substack.com/archive?sort=new

[rebot]

2 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

At the best,  you are paying a higher price for a lotto ticket that might be a knockoff.

I like this analogy.

Quote

I am just not absolving them of the responsibility they now carry in this scenario. And this isn't even addressing the societal cost that this approach brings. They did not do a simple step available to everyone, and did not use their agency to both save themselves and help out society as a whole.

I enjoyed reading your opinion and although I disagree with portions of it, I can absolutely understand where you are coming from.

I speak in generalities from what I’ve previously read and I’m probably not going to get every detail correct but ... Coronaviruses are all around us. Often these are the illnesses that cause the common cold. Their only goal is to survive and reproduce. They do this by mutating to become less lethal but more contagious. When you are exposed, your body produces both a cell-mediated and a humoral response. After time, humoral memory fades. However, your cell mediated memory is long term. Later, when you are re-exposed your body yells “attack” and rushes into battle. If it is a mutated strain, your cell mediated system recognizes the similarities, modifies its battle plan, and urges the humoral system to join it in battle. This is why sometimes you will get the ’sniffles’ for a day or two but your kids will have a cold for more than a week. Covid isn’t going away. If its path follows other coronaviruses, it will eventually manifest similar to a common cold. That’s not to say that it isn’t big, bad, and scary now but that is because no one on the planet had been exposed to this particular virus. No one had any way to fight it. 

To counteract that, a vaccine was introduced using technology that, although studied for a long time, had never received approval for vaccine usage. Side note… I do think mRNA may be the ‘miracle’ drug of the future but I don’t think we’re there yet. Covid is already following the trajectory of other coronaviruses. I’m assuming that this is not going to change, which is why I’d rather take my changes with getting Covid vs. taking my changes with a new vaccine that they are rushing through the approval process. If it continues to mutate (which I don't see changing) we are setting ourselves up to need yearly boosters. For me that's a no thank you. They are relying on copious amount of short term data to rush FDA approval while forgoing the collection of long term data. Not only that, but both Pfizer and Moderna have admitted to giving their control group the vaccine because it was the right thing to do. That's right, they got rid of their control group.

I have trouble trusting the people/organizations that are making our pandemic policies when they talk out of one side of their mouth claiming that we know enough to know that the new vaccine is safe. While talking out of the other side of their mouth stirring up fear and claiming that it is impossible to have answers about Covid because it’s new and we are still learning about it.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

I've been following this thread, it's been bit difficult to figure out what I thought on this. Not because I thought shaming was ok, as much as I wasn't sure I knew where the line between telling the truth and shaming were on this topic. And then it seems a lot of this is getting blurred about shaming in pre-vaccine and post-vaccine worlds, which to me looks very different.

To keep myself general, not talking about a particular family, person, situation, or even theoretical:

Pre-vaccine, everyone had the same chances with Covid. Sure, some people had pre-existing conditions, others had to work, some people have unknown conditions, others just tend to get catch anything, some people licked deli counters, others became hermits. These things lessened or heightened chances, but on the whole and especially at the beginning we didn't know that much.

Sick-shaming when really it was all about luck [where you lived, who you saw, what the last person at the gas station did with their snot] shouldn't have been done (I'm sure it was, though I didn't see it on this board). The idea that "no one is safe" should have been taken to heart, and sick-shaming at that stage is bluntly ridiculous. It struck everyone, and while some pre-existing conditions had the chance of making your outcome worse, it was not like having perfect health was a Get Out Of Jail Free card, and so treating people differently based on things that didn't necessarily make a difference isn't sensible and is, in itself, shameful behavior. 

Post-vaccine, we as a society now have the option to get a free lottery ticket to "opt out" of Covid. ~95 out of 100 people will win the lottery. The other 5 are almost assured a consolation prize of mild Covid instead of hospitalization and death. There is maybe 1 out of a different magnitude that pulls a true unlucky lot and will be in the hospital, or die of Covid, post-vaccination. That is sad, that is unfortunate and tragic, but it's down to bad luck at that point, IF they entered the vaccine lottery.

Post-vaccine, people [insert all caveats of no contraindications, age, etc that would prevent vaccination] who are not buying their "vaccine lotto ticket", which is free relatively easy, and helps others around them, are not being given the same grace as the pre-vaccine world because they are choosing to gamble with their life. Sure, a lot of them are going to come out okay: no Covid, asymptomatic, mild case, a bad couple weeks in bed. Some of them are going to have life-altering but not life-stopping cases. And a few are going to die.

So, if people choose not to buy the ticket, well, okay. Except for a few fringe cases and industries they probably will be able to make this choice with no real change to their daily life. Unless they get Covid, obviously.

And if people really want to do "Covid parties" and then isolate until they have naturally occurring immunity [for an unknown amount of time], I suppose that's their choice, too. Except that has the opportunity to land them in the hospital, much greater chance than getting the vaccine. And studies so far are being mixed as to it's efficacy vs vaccines for re-infection; and, this is probably going to be difficult to pin down because when you get sick you're not really controlling for the viral load, or who gave it to you (sure you went to a Covid party, but maybe you also were on the Subway next to an asymptomatic carrier) or what variation you're exposing to. Whereas the vaccine everyone is getting the same dose, mostly same spacing, etc, that can be quantified and tracked. Plus a certain percentage of people getting it now "for the first time" may have had it before and not known. At the best,  you are paying a higher price for a lotto ticket that might be a knockoff.

So it doesn't have the same end effect as vaccination. This method is only speeding up their odds, not changing them. And now with the Delta variant, those odds are different from what we've become 'comfortable' with.

When you play the odds, you usually do whatever you can to better them for you. Vaccination does that. Covid parties or "take my chances" do not.

I'm not saying that sick-shaming now is okay, but the game as changed, and when you were given a get out of jail free card and chose to tear it up in Mr. Monopoly's face, there is a different set of metrics in culpability. Should they still be given the level of care possible? Yes. Should they be treated with human decency? Yes. Should they be told it isn't their fault and they are just victims of chance? Not really. Should their feelings be coddled when they say they couldn't do anything to avoid it? Not necessary. Can people be blunt that they probably could have prevented this? In the spirit of kindness I wouldn't bring it up, but I wouldn't indulge fantasy woe-is-me either.

Yes, it's treating them differently, and maybe it would be called sick-shaming by some in this thread, but I'm not shaming them for getting a potentially-deadly disease in the middle of the global pandemic, I am just not absolving them of the responsibility they now carry in this scenario. And this isn't even addressing the societal cost that this approach brings. They did not do a simple step available to everyone, and did not use their agency to both save themselves and help out society as a whole. 

Well first of all, this does ignore all the people who had actual reasons not to vaccinate, whose reasons are their private business and don't need to be evaluated or judged by others.

Secondly, given what we know and don't know about the vax and talk of Covid being "endemic," one could believe they are choosing between catching Covid now or catching it later.  It is still unknown whether getting actual Covid will be a better protection against future Covid infection, serious effects, or the need for a series of boosters with their side effects.  Since it is unknown, I don't see how people can get judgmental about one guess vs. another.

And as for making a choice, is it appropriate for people with vax side effects to be "sick shamed" because they chose the vax?  I mean for many if not most Americans, Covid symptoms are milder than the vax side effects.  But they are "taking one for the team," whereas people who want natural immunity are selfish and deserve to be cut off from the health system.

[Frances]

34 minutes ago, rebot said:

Coronaviruses are all around us. Often these are the illnesses that cause the common cold. Their only goal is to survive and reproduce. They do this by mutating to become less lethal but more contagious. 

Covid is already following the trajectory of other coronaviruses. I’m assuming that this is not going to change, which is why I’d rather take my changes with getting Covid vs. taking my changes with a new vaccine that they are rushing through the approval process. 

 

Although they are still collecting data, there does seem to be growing evidence that Delta is actually more dangerous than Alpha which was more dangerous than the original. So while it is more contagious as you say is the expected trajectory, it doesn’t seem to be following the less lethal prediction, at least not yet.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/08/421171/how-dangerous-delta-variant-heres-what-science-says

Edited August 8, 2021 by Frances

[TravelingChris]

37 minutes ago, Frances said:

Although they are still collecting data, there does seem to be growing evidence that Delta is actually more dangerous than Alpha which was more dangerous than the original. So while it is more contagious as you say is the expected trajectory, it doesn’t seem to be following the less lethal prediction, at least not yet.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/08/421171/how-dangerous-delta-variant-heres-what-science-says

Exactly

[busymama7]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

Although they are still collecting data, there does seem to be growing evidence that Delta is actually more dangerous than Alpha which was more dangerous than the original. So while it is more contagious as you say is the expected trajectory, it doesn’t seem to be following the less lethal prediction, at least not yet.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/08/421171/how-dangerous-delta-variant-heres-what-science-says

Does anyone know why this is? What would cause a virus to do this when most(all?) Others mutate to be less lethal?

[rebot]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

Although they are still collecting data, there does seem to be growing evidence that Delta is actually more dangerous than Alpha which was more dangerous than the original. So while it is more contagious as you say is the expected trajectory, it doesn’t seem to be following the less lethal prediction, at least not yet.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/08/421171/how-dangerous-delta-variant-heres-what-science-says

I'm not trying to nit-pick, but I read the article and clicked on each of the referenced link. Below are each referenced link conclusions. I’m not saying that Delta is not more severe. I’m saying at this time, there is not enough data to conclude that it is more severe. However, when you turn on the tv or open a news webpage all you get is fear mongering.

• The internal CDC summarized Delta was highly contagious, likely more severe, and breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.

• The China study showed that it is more transmissible. It did not say anything about severity.

• Another study stated that there was signal toward increased severity associated with Delta. It also showed that Delta lasts longer and is transmitted easier.

• The unpublished studies discusses the spike protein and that 75% of spikes are primed in Delta. There isn’t anything discussing severity.

• Canada study notes increased transmissibility but increased virulence data is limited.

• The Scotland study isn’t actually available to read.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss the cell mediated immune system.

Edited to add that even though I said I didn't want to nit-pick, my entire response sounds nit-picky. This wasn't in any way directed at Frances. I know that I'm guilty and I'm guessing everyone on here is guilty of skimming an article, or a headline and assuming it as fact. My nit-pick is directed at the media who are sensationalizing Covid to increase their followers.

Edited August 8, 2021 by rebot
clarifying

[Frances]

18 minutes ago, rebot said:

I'm not trying to nit-pick, but I read the article and clicked on each of the referenced link. Below are each referenced link conclusions. I’m not saying that Delta is not more severe. I’m saying at this time, there is not enough data to conclude that it is more severe. However, when you turn on the tv or open a news webpage all you get is fear mongering.

• The internal CDC summarized Delta was highly contagious, likely more severe, and breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.

• The China study showed that it is more transmissible. It did not say anything about severity.

• Another study stated that there was signal toward increased severity associated with Delta. It also showed that Delta lasts longer and is transmitted easier.

• The unpublished studies discusses the spike protein and that 75% of spikes are primed in Delta. There isn’t anything discussing severity.

• Canada study notes increased transmissibility but increased virulence data is limited.

• The Scotland study isn’t actually available to read.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss the cell mediated immune system.

That’s exactly what I said, data is still being collected, as it’s early in the Delta surge in the US. Although the article did not provide links, it did say Alpha was more serious than the original. I’m guessing studies could be found if one was interested. Since my husband is actually working with covid patients, I trust his observations about Delta. I don’t watch TV and local news articles match what he is seeing. So at least for me, it doesn’t seem like fear mongering. It seems like reality. YMMV.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Frances

[HeartString]

29 minutes ago, busymama7 said:

Does anyone know why this is? What would cause a virus to do this when most(all?) Others mutate to be less lethal?

I think it’s because it’s not that lethal to begin with.   Killing around 1% of those it infects isn’t going to risk burning through the hosts.  If it mutates to killing 1.5 or 2% of its hosts, it’s fine, from the perspective of the virus.  
 

I think we are also looking at it over too short of a time period.   Over time viruses tend to mutate to be less lethal, but we’ve only been at this for 18 months.   In a decade we’ll probably be looking at less lethal Covid, with some more lethal variants popping up here and there as it moves in cycles.  

[Catwoman]

@rebot — I noticed that you mentioned in one of your posts that you didn’t know how to tag someone. All you have to do is put the @ symbol in front of their name (with no space after the @) and as you type out the username, it will pop up and you can click on it to tag them.

If that doesn’t make sense, let me know and I can try to explain it more clearly for you. 🙂 

[rebot]

10 minutes ago, Frances said:

That’s exactly what I said, data is still being collected, as it’s early in the Delta surge in the US. Although the article did not provide links, it did say Alpha was more serious than the original. I’m guessing studies could be found if one was interested. Since my husband is actually working with covid patients, I trust his observations about Delta. I don’t watch TV and local news articles match what he is seeing. So at least for me, it doesn’t seem like fear mongering. It seems like reality. YMMV.

I went back and edited my response because I totally sounded nitpicky. I have found, now more than ever, that articles are written to conform to the narrative. This happens on both sides.

The fact that your husband does work with covid patients gives you an inside perspective that I don't have. I've seen people (not so much on here) recently referencing tweets about how unvaccinated people are begging for the vaccine on their deathbed. These people are honestly taking a random persons tweet as proof that Delta is more deadly. The scary thing is a quick search shows that these tweets are bots.

Again sorry about my previous post. It's more directed towards not trusting that the media is accurately reporting without also trying to make sure they grab those headlines.

[Frances]

19 minutes ago, rebot said:

I went back and edited my response because I totally sounded nitpicky. I have found, now more than ever, that articles are written to conform to the narrative. This happens on both sides.

The fact that your husband does work with covid patients gives you an inside perspective that I don't have. I've seen people (not so much on here) recently referencing tweets about how unvaccinated people are begging for the vaccine on their deathbed. These people are honestly taking a random persons tweet as proof that Delta is more deadly. The scary thing is a quick search shows that these tweets are bots.

Again sorry about my previous post. It's more directed towards not trusting that the media is accurately reporting without also trying to make sure they grab those headlines.

I never got the impression that people were using very sick or dying people asking for the vaccine as proof that Delta is more deadly, rather as encouraging people to get vaccinated. I have no idea whether or not the tweets are real or from bots (the video news interviews seems real enough, as do the testimonies of some healthcare providers), but they wouldn’t have made sense early in the pandemic because vaccines weren’t available.

Just as most people don’t have a family member working closely with covid patients, so their perspective may be different than mine, I consume very little news and then only print news and this is my only social media outlet. So my perspective on the media may be different than those watching lots of TV or on Twitter and Facebook.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Frances

[Halftime Hope]

2 hours ago, TCB said:

Thank you, that is the sort of information I was seeking. I believe there is an RCT being done in the UK at the moment that might yield some good information. 
My understanding was that the benefits of Ivermectin where seen via the meta analyses, I saw that there were positive studies in that list but it seemed like they were mostly very small studies, and that is why I was wondering about the effects of the withdrawal of the Egyptian study. Do you know if any of the more vocal Ivermectin proponents have commented about it?

Yes, they have.  This is a joint statement from the FLCCC and the BIRD group, both of whom have peer-reviewed journal-published papers on the topic.  https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FLCCC-BIRD-Guardian-Elgazzar-Study-FINAL-1.pdf  

I find it interesting that Andrew Hill (and underlings) who led the initial Unitaid metanalyses for the World Health Organization (he did multiple iterations) didn't find and call out the Elgazzar errors, as he was neck deep in the data and was corresponding with study authors all over the world. If the WHO culled out that study in the final few that were presented in their recommendation, this is precisely why they should have followed accepted methodology and stated their exclusion/inclusion criteria publicly and then followed it scrupulously, something they did not do. They opened themselves up for all kinds of valid criticism when they deviated from accepted methodology and didn't state their criteria for accepting or rejecting studies. A second valid criticism is that their conclusion absolutely did not match their data which, even with only a few studies, showed very promising results for ivermectin. 

Like the JAMA study from Cali, Colombia which was rife with study-design flaws, confounders, errors in labeling and dosing, and more conflicts of interest than should ever have allowed it to be published, the UK RCT is also designed poorly.  People can join that study up to 14 days post initial symptoms.  The study is unethical:  we know people do better when treated immediately, so to have an arm that does not treat is completely unethical. We also know that antivirals should be given early, and one of ivermectin's many mechanisms of action is as an anti-viral.  It does help later in the course of illness in people with more serious cases, but if the majority of outpatients are better by day 14 and you're not enrolling them until pretty late, it will tank the apparent efficacy of the drug just like it did in the Cali study.  

The Cali study showed 2 days shorter time to resolution of symptoms for ivermectin, and it did so WITH statistical significance, and this is a drug that passes 1) safety data, 2) availability, 3) ease of administration, and 4) cost criteria, yet the authors and by inference, JAMA, panned it. The widespread media takeaway was that "ivermectin doesn't work."   

By contrast, remdesevir was approved for EUA when the initial small studies showed 2 days improvement in duration of symptoms (my wording is not precise) but no death benefit, and it was only, in Fauci's words, "trending toward significance", NOT a statistically significant finding. Rmdsvr is associated with extensive adverse effects, has to be given as infusions in the hospital, was not widely available, and cost $3K, but it got approved.  To say that is a double standard is an understatement.   

So here's what people should know about ivermectin:  contrary to what is being said here on this board, it is effective.  You can choose what you wish to look at:  epidemiological data (what happens when it is rolled out widely in a country or geographical area), studies of all kinds except for RCTs, because the third world doesn't have the funding to do those and pharma has zero interest in investing in something it can't make a buck off, and you can look at case series and observational studies. There are doctors who are using it and they are having tremendous success.  It's unwise to dismiss out-of-hand all the doctors who are getting patients in on Day 7 or 8 or 10 who can't breathe, and turning them around two days, or the ones who have used it to treat 1200, or 800, or 1600 patients, out of whom 1 or maybe 2 have been hospitalized.  Many of these patients are ones who are coming in late, and they are still having success. It's also really unwise to write off the hospitals that are using it as a part of a comprehensive protocol and having death rates that are a fraction of what is in their neighboring hospitals.  

And yes, one of our moderators doesn't believe ivermectin works, and she has posted today about "protocols" (her air-quotes, indicating her disbelief). Well, these "protocols" are peer-reviewed, journal published, and the two that I'm aware of (there are more) are collaborations of doctors literally from all over the world. These are not just a fly-by-night invention of a single rogue doctor or even a small group of doctors with dubious affiliations. Doctors all over the world are using these medications and similar ones, because what works, works. Medicines that have anti-viral properties work on the viral phase of this illness. Medicines that are anti-coagulants, immune moderators, and anti-inflammatories (among them statins and steroids) work during the inflammatory stage of the illness. Medications that inhibit mast cell activation can help, too.  Even antihistamines and anti-serotonergics have their place.  

The doctors that I'm hearing talk about their treating patients are also treating long-COVID, and they are having success keeping their patients from getting long-COVID.  It's a win-win.

So, I would think that we would welcome all treatments that work, especially if they are safe, widely available, and cheap. Treating sickness with multiple drugs during the course of a particular disease is not new.  What is new is the terribly misguided advice and stance of the healthcare administrative types telling the ill to go home and do self-care until they are well or need to go to the hospital. This is even more true with delta, considering that the variant is better at spreading and replicating.  If some of our elderly and immune compromised are having breakthrough cases, wouldn't it make sense to treat and to both shorten the duration and mitigate the severity of the breakthrough? 

What most people don't understand, including some young people in medicine, is that medicine has always taken what seemed to be working and done as much good as possible with it, and then trialed it later to confirm or deny.  This new stance of "we can't do anything until we have an RCT", to the neglect of all the other signals, is baloney." Frankly, the only people benefiting from that stance are those who are making money in one way or another. 

If anyone wants to read up on this themselves, google "early treatment protocol" or other similar keywords.  YouTube is a wonderful source of de-monetized video channels 😉  with doctors talking about how they have treated COVID patients. As is Odysee.  And if you'd like an idea of just how many drugs there are that thinking doctors are using to treat patients, here is one link:  https://c19early.com/ 

And with this comment I'm going to quit beating my head on the wall trying to spread the really good news and constantly being told it isn't true. (this has been going on for weeks on this board.)

There is an efficacious way of treating COVID so it's not such a terrible illness, and it's worth trying not only for avoiding the misery and damage, but also for its success in cutting the incidence of long-COVID.  It will become even more important, I think, given the waning ability of anti-body infusions to help with the variants as vax efficacy also wanes. (See Israeli data.) We have to help the world, not just the people who can afford multiple boosters. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Halftime Hope]

1 hour ago, rebot said:

I'm not trying to nit-pick, but I read the article and clicked on each of the referenced link. Below are each referenced link conclusions. I’m not saying that Delta is not more severe. I’m saying at this time, there is not enough data to conclude that it is more severe. However, when you turn on the tv or open a news webpage all you get is fear mongering.

• The internal CDC summarized Delta was highly contagious, likely more severe, and breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.

• The China study showed that it is more transmissible. It did not say anything about severity.

• Another study stated that there was signal toward increased severity associated with Delta. It also showed that Delta lasts longer and is transmitted easier.

• The unpublished studies discusses the spike protein and that 75% of spikes are primed in Delta. There isn’t anything discussing severity.

• Canada study notes increased transmissibility but increased virulence data is limited.

• The Scotland study isn’t actually available to read.

The rest of the article goes on to discuss the cell mediated immune system.

Edited to add that even though I said I didn't want to nit-pick, my entire response sounds nit-picky. This wasn't in any way directed at Frances. I know that I'm guilty and I'm guessing everyone on here is guilty of skimming an article, or a headline and assuming it as fact. My nit-pick is directed at the media who are sensationalizing Covid to increase their followers.

I read the Scotland study the other day with our health director.  Of note, the author's conclusion was not what I expected I'd find based on reporting.  It basically said that cases were occurring in younger, more affluent people, and that as expected, hospitalizations occurred more frequently among those with multiple prexisting conditions or co-morbidities.  He and I both read it and were both looking at each other rather perplexed.  We both questioned our response to it, and confirmed what we read. Pretty anticlimactic. 

[lewelma]

4 hours ago, busymama7 said:

Does anyone know why this is? What would cause a virus to do this when most(all?) Others mutate to be less lethal?

It is all about making more copies of yourself. There are two ways to perceive of the environment of the virus - the billions that live within 1 host, and then the number of hosts it infects. The virus makes copies of itself by replicating within and spreading without.  The second thing you need to realize is that a virus has not a whole lot of code that can actually mutate -- it is small. So the mutations available must not destroy the virus, basically there are limited options as to what base pair can change and still make a functioning protein that then also makes the virus better able to replicate. 

With a bit of anthropormizing, the virus is looking to spread. So it needs to evade our defences, both within the body (immune system) and outside the body (contact tracers, isolation, drugs, etc). Killing the host, kills all billion copies that are in the host, but if you have infected many other hosts it does not matter, because there is still more of you out there. Basically, you need to mutate to infect as many as possible before killing the host. It does not matter if you kill the host as long as you are now in many other hosts. 

So we are seeing

1) decreased time to becoming contagious. It is down from 6 days to 3.5 days. This can now outcompete the contact tracers and people realizing they are sick and self-isolating or going to bed.

2) Possibly more virulent.  You could make the argument that more people are exposed when you enter a hospital because you are very sick than when you stay in bed at home because you are only kind of sick. It is all about making copies.

3) Obviously, the r value is going way up. More infectious, more hosts are infected, more copies are made. 

4) Possibly a more lingering illness. A longer time to infect means more hosts are infected so more copies made. 

5) Increased death?  If you can increase the viral load in the host enough to become more infectious, you can still kill the host without impacting your replication. As long as you are infecting more people before you kill the host than if you gave the host a lower viral load (making them less infectious but not killing them), then this version of the virus will spread.

If you had the numbers, you could easily model this. Basically, when you compare how different viruses evolve you need to consider both the environment they are replicating in (with people isolating and masking this is different than previous environments of other viruses), and the actual ability of the genetic code to create usable changes that increase replication.

HTH

Edited August 8, 2021 by lewelma

[mathnerd]

1 hour ago, rebot said:

I've seen people (not so much on here) recently referencing tweets about how unvaccinated people are begging for the vaccine on their deathbed. These people are honestly taking a random persons tweet as proof that Delta is more deadly. The scary thing is a quick search shows that these tweets are bots.

I read the headline news and I use news.google.com as my main news aggregator. I don't actively  search for these stories as they fill me with regret for the lost potential and the devastation to these families, but it is false to say that people are not begging for the vaccine on their deathbed or that there are bots posting false tweets about that. I don't have political affiliations that persuade me to stick to any particular set of beliefs, I am just a human being seeing unnecessary tragic deaths and wondering why this is happening in a developed country in the First World where resources (internet on cellphones to do research!), scientific advances, knowledge and education are plentiful (as I have first hand experience of living in the Third World for extended time).

https://www.wfxrtv.com/news/health/coronavirus/dying-covid-patients-begging-area-doctors-for-the-vaccine-with-their-final-breaths/

https://www.salon.com/2021/08/08/former-newsmax-host-dies-of-covid-after-deathbed-about-face-on-anti-vax-beliefs/

https://www.kctv5.com/coronavirus/being-unvaccinated-is-largest-regret-of-my-life-says-hospitalized-man/article_1134cbfc-f573-11eb-93a4-ff2326f8f4b8.html

https://www.rawstory.com/victims/

 

Edited August 8, 2021 by mathnerd
poor grammar!

[TCB]

32 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Yes, they have.  This is a joint statement from the FLCCC and the BIRD group, both of whom have peer-reviewed journal-published papers on the topic.  https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FLCCC-BIRD-Guardian-Elgazzar-Study-FINAL-1.pdf  

I find it interesting that Andrew Hill (and underlings) who led the initial Unitaid metanalyses for the World Health Organization (he did multiple iterations) didn't find and call out the Elgazzar errors, as he was neck deep in the data and was corresponding with study authors all over the world. If the WHO culled out that study in the final few that were presented in their recommendation, this is precisely why they should have followed accepted methodology and stated their exclusion/inclusion criteria publicly and then followed it scrupulously, something they did not do. They opened themselves up for all kinds of valid criticism when they deviated from accepted methodology and didn't state their criteria for accepting or rejecting studies. A second valid criticism is that their conclusion absolutely did not match their data which, even with only a few studies, showed very promising results for ivermectin. 

Like the JAMA study from Cali, Colombia which was rife with study-design flaws, confounders, errors in labeling and dosing, and more conflicts of interest than should ever have allowed it to be published, the UK RCT is also designed poorly.  People can join that study up to 14 days post initial symptoms.  The study is unethical:  we know people do better when treated immediately, so to have an arm that does not treat is completely unethical. We also know that antivirals should be given early, and one of ivermectin's many mechanisms of action is as an anti-viral.  It does help later in the course of illness in people with more serious cases, but if the majority of outpatients are better by day 14 and you're not enrolling them until pretty late, it will tank the apparent efficacy of the drug just like it did in the Cali study.  

The Cali study showed 2 days shorter time to resolution of symptoms for ivermectin, and it did so WITH statistical significance, and this is a drug that passes 1) safety data, 2) availability, 3) ease of administration, and 4) cost criteria, yet the authors and by inference, JAMA, panned it. The widespread media takeaway was that "ivermectin doesn't work."   

By contrast, remdesevir was approved for EUA when the initial small studies showed 2 days improvement in duration of symptoms (my wording is not precise) but no death benefit, and it was only, in Fauci's words, "trending toward significance", NOT a statistically significant finding. Rmdsvr is associated with extensive adverse effects, has to be given as infusions in the hospital, was not widely available, and cost $3K, but it got approved.  To say that is a double standard is an understatement.   

So here's what people should know about ivermectin:  contrary to what is being said here on this board, it is effective.  You can choose what you wish to look at:  epidemiological data (what happens when it is rolled out widely in a country or geographical area), studies of all kinds except for RCTs, because the third world doesn't have the funding to do those and pharma has zero interest in investing in something it can't make a buck off, and you can look at case series and observational studies. There are doctors who are using it and they are having tremendous success.  It's unwise to dismiss out-of-hand all the doctors who are getting patients in on Day 7 or 8 or 10 who can't breathe, and turning them around two days, or the ones who have used it to treat 1200, or 800, or 1600 patients, out of whom 1 or maybe 2 have been hospitalized.  Many of these patients are ones who are coming in late, and they are still having success. It's also really unwise to write off the hospitals that are using it as a part of a comprehensive protocol and having death rates that are a fraction of what is in their neighboring hospitals.  

And yes, one of our moderators doesn't believe ivermectin works, and she has posted today about "protocols" (her air-quotes, indicating her disbelief). Well, these "protocols" are peer-reviewed, journal published, and the two that I'm aware of (there are more) are collaborations of doctors literally from all over the world. These are not just a fly-by-night invention of a single rogue doctor or even a small group of doctors with dubious affiliations. Doctors all over the world are using these medications and similar ones, because what works, works. Medicines that have anti-viral properties work on the viral phase of this illness. Medicines that are anti-coagulants, immune moderators, and anti-inflammatories (among them statins and steroids) work during the inflammatory stage of the illness. Medications that inhibit mast cell activation can help, too.  Even antihistamines and anti-serotonergics have their place.  

The doctors that I'm hearing talk about their treating patients are also treating long-COVID, and they are having success keeping their patients from getting long-COVID.  It's a win-win.

So, I would think that we would welcome all treatments that work, especially if they are safe, widely available, and cheap. Treating sickness with multiple drugs during the course of a particular disease is not new.  What is new is the terribly misguided advice and stance of the healthcare administrative types telling the ill to go home and do self-care until they are well or need to go to the hospital. This is even more true with delta, considering that the variant is better at spreading and replicating.  If some of our elderly and immune compromised are having breakthrough cases, wouldn't it make sense to treat and to both shorten the duration and mitigate the severity of the breakthrough? 

What most people don't understand, including some young people in medicine, is that medicine has always taken what seemed to be working and done as much good as possible with it, and then trialed it later to confirm or deny.  This new stance of "we can't do anything until we have an RCT", to the neglect of all the other signals, is baloney." Frankly, the only people benefiting from that stance are those who are making money in one way or another. 

If anyone wants to read up on this themselves, google "early treatment protocol" or other similar keywords.  YouTube is a wonderful source of de-monetized video channels 😉  with doctors talking about how they have treated COVID patients. As is Odysee.  And if you'd like an idea of just how many drugs there are that thinking doctors are using to treat patients, here is one link:  https://c19early.com/ 

And with this comment I'm going to quit beating my head on the wall trying to spread the really good news and constantly being told it isn't true. (this has been going on for weeks on this board.)

There is an efficacious way of treating COVID so it's not such a terrible illness, and it's worth trying not only for avoiding the misery and damage, but also for its success in cutting the incidence of long-COVID.  It will become even more important, I think, given the waning ability of anti-body infusions to help with the variants as vax efficacy also wanes. (See Israeli data.) We have to help the world, not just the people who can afford multiple boosters. 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for linking the response. 
I can tell that you are very pro Ivermectin. I mostly see extremely sick Covid patients, some of whom have taken HCQ and Ivermectin, but not enough of a sample to get a clear idea. I have to say that what seems very clearly helpful in preventing severe illness and death is the vaccine. Most of the people I come in contact with who are very sure that Ivermectin works have been unvaccinated. I’m not sure where you stand on the vaccines, but do you think the benefit of them is at least as apparent, or even more apparent than the evidence for Ivermectin? It seems to me, from the people that I know locally, that evidence is not necessarily the basis for their decisions, and I am not trying to be a smart Aleck when I say that.

I’m going to be honest here and say that I think I remember you were pretty enthusiastic about HCQ initially and I was wondering what you thought about that now? And what you thought were the differences in the information about efficacy available for both of them. In my mind it seems like people moved from being in favor of one to the other and that does give me pause about the evidence for Ivermectin. Another thing I have wondered about is why the countries with widespread Ivermectin use, such as Brazil and India, still have had such terrible problems. I know a number of people in Brazil and know that Ivermectin is available there.

[KSera]

4 hours ago, rebot said:

They do this by mutating to become less lethal but more contagious. 

I’ve noticed this particular tendency of viruses has come to be spoken about as if it were a fact and always the case, when that’s not true. If it were, we wouldn’t have certain years that suddenly produce a flu virus that’s much more lethal, such as the 1918-1919 flu pandemic or even H1N1.  Ebola has mutated to become even more lethal as well, as has West Nile.  So unfortunately, we can’t just count on this one becoming less lethal, and even if it hopefully does become so in the future, we still have to get through the now, and there’s nothing to prevent it from becoming even more lethal before it becomes less so.

4 hours ago, SKL said:

And as for making a choice, is it appropriate for people with vax side effects to be "sick shamed" because they chose the vax?  I mean for many if not most Americans, Covid symptoms are milder than the vax side effects.  But they are "taking one for the team," whereas people who want natural immunity are selfish and deserve to be cut off from the health system.

I don’t see the equivalence here. I don’t advocate anyone being sick shamed, but getting a vaccine does not infect others, and they are astronomically unlikely to put any strain on the healthcare system  due to a vaccine side effect versus due to contracting the disease.

 

2 hours ago, Frances said:

That’s exactly what I said, data is still being collected, as it’s early in the Delta surge in the US. Although the article did not provide links, it did say Alpha was more serious than the original. I’m guessing studies could be found if one was interested. Since my husband is actually working with covid patients, I trust his observations about Delta. I don’t watch TV and local news articles match what he is seeing. So at least for me, it doesn’t seem like fear mongering. It seems like reality. YMMV.

I was looking for data on this yesterday, and found three different very recent studies all showing close to two times the hospitalization rate with Delta.  I posted it somewhere, perhaps this thread, but I’m posting on the run right now and can’t look it up again.

2 hours ago, rebot said:

I've seen people (not so much on here) recently referencing tweets about how unvaccinated people are begging for the vaccine on their deathbed. These people are honestly taking a random persons tweet as proof that Delta is more deadly. The scary thing is a quick search shows that these tweets are bots.

The cases of death bed conversions have nothing to do with arguing Delta being more deadly, it has to do with people realizing how badly they were misled by all the anti-VAX information out there and how much they want others not to follow in their footsteps. Given the enormous problem with misinformation bots these days, I don’t doubt there are some bots doing this, though I haven’t seen any. I’ve seen lots and lots of these cases, and not a single one is a bot, as each has been an in person interview with the person or a family member. There was just another Covid conspiracy theory radio host who just died from it and radio host Phil Valentine, who has recanted his previous anti-vax stance and wants his listeners to get vaccinated is currently in critical condition on life-support. I don’t know the motivation for people to pretend this isn’t really happening and we don’t really have thousands of people dying of Covid that didn’t need to and wouldn’t have had they been vaccinated. I don’t know what the trade-off is that’s making this worth it 😢. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by KSera

[Jean in Newcastle]

My concern is that promoting Ivermectin and HCQ is that it gives people a false security in something that has NOT been proven to actually help. If people took that PLUS got the vaccine and masked and social distanced and limited group size then I wouldn’t care. 

[Halftime Hope]

8 minutes ago, TCB said:

Thank you for linking the response. 
I can tell that you are very pro Ivermectin. I mostly see extremely sick Covid patients, some of whom have taken HCQ and Ivermectin, but not enough of a sample to get a clear idea. I have to say that what seems very clearly helpful in preventing severe illness and death is the vaccine. Most of the people I come in contact with who are very sure that Ivermectin works have been unvaccinated. I’m not sure where you stand on the vaccines, but do you think the benefit of them is at least as apparent, or even more apparent than the evidence for Ivermectin? It seems to me, from the people that I know locally, that evidence is not necessarily the basis for their decisions, and I am not trying to be a smart Aleck when I say that.

I’m going to be honest here and say that I think I remember you were pretty enthusiastic about HCQ initially and I was wondering what you thought about that now? And what you thought were the differences in the information about efficacy available for both of them. In my mind it seems like people moved from being in favor of one to the other and that does give me pause about the evidence for Ivermectin. Another thing I have wondered about is why the countries with widespread Ivermectin use, such as Brazil and India, still have had such terrible problems. I know a number of people in Brazil and know that Ivermectin is available there.

I was enthusiastic about HCQ because I saw it work beautifully when used in early treatment with someone who had every reason to expect the worst.  I have not spent time looking at it further because my understanding is that ivm is so much better at all stages of the disease.  

One of the doctors I've heard speaking multiple times feels that ivm was great, but in his patient population, when he added fluvoxamine, it completely cleared up that small percentage that still struggled on ivm.  Putting it together with the hypothesis of serotonin poisoning (Dr. Fareed Jalali), it all falls into place.  

Contrary to popular wisdom, ivermectin is banned in many places in Brazil...I have that firsthand: widespread government media campaigns threatening consequences for use.  Same for India, only being used in 7 out of 13 (?) states/departments or whatever they are called. 

As to vaccines, I'm trying to stay up with the data. "Largely effective" is what I'm hearing based on data (not reporting), but apparently waning in efficacy, and as expected, not that great in those who can't mount a great immune response.  I really struggle with the ethics of a booster as the world waits, which is why I'm a fan of other approaches added to the vaccine.  I'm a huge fan of the Zoe app in the UK, thinking it's about the best, most honest data we can get, aside from what is coming out of Israel. 

I'm concerned about this winter.  

 

 

 

 

 

[rebot]

@Frances I was thinking about your reply while I was prepping dinner. I think you, and others like you, have a distinct advantage over people like me. I have to rely on the news for information, whereas, you have someone on the 'front lines’ that you can confirm information with. Honestly, for me I feel like this pretty much sums up the last 1.5 years.

...only 2 weeks, we’re all in it together …… just a little longer ….. almost there

...it definitely didn’t come from a lab… not a lab … misinformation, science deniers, don’t believe it came from a lab ….. well, maybe it came from a lab … it probably came from a lab

...you don’t have to wear a mask if you’re healthy… everyone should wear a mask … if you’re vaccinated, you don’t need a mask …. yea, no masks…. just kidding, everyone should wear one

...vaccinated people can not transmit the virus… misinformation, don't believe the science deniers …. so, vaccinated people can pass the virus but just a little

...social distancing is very important … unless you are a politician with what you consider a worthwhile event

The local news had a newscaster in front of the hospital. You heard sirens in the back ground as she passionately talked about how the hospitals in my area were almost to capacity. The next day, one of my closest friends (who is quite high-up in one of the local hospital systems) stated that a bunch of doctors/nurses were out either to due to covid or for being exposed (I can’t remember exactly). The hospitals were almost to capacity because of staffing not because they were jammed packed with sick patients. The way the news presented it was misleading.

I was on board with all of it (I mean, things change as new data comes out, right?) until, when they realized they were wrong about the lab and transmission, they didn’t admit fault and apologize to the doctors and scientists that got discredited and blocked off of social media. Nope. Instead they doubled down with their finger pointing and misinformation labels.

[rebot]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

I consume very little news and then only print news and this is my only social media outlet. So my perspective on the media may be different than those watching lots of TV or on Twitter and Facebook.

Originally, I watched the news nightly, trying to figure out what was going on. Now I peruse a few sites that I trust. I think a lot of younger people rely on social media for their news, but I know my parents and IL's turn the tv on every night to get their news.

I've never been active on social media. I'm trying here because I lost my in person social circle when we moved. So far I like it. I tried Facebook, but wow. I feel like I have to be way more excited about what I eat for dinner and doing crafts with my kids to fit in there.

[Moonhawk]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Well first of all, this does ignore all the people who had actual reasons not to vaccinate, whose reasons are their private business and don't need to be evaluated or judged by others.

Secondly, given what we know and don't know about the vax and talk of Covid being "endemic," one could believe they are choosing between catching Covid now or catching it later.  It is still unknown whether getting actual Covid will be a better protection against future Covid infection, serious effects, or the need for a series of boosters with their side effects.  Since it is unknown, I don't see how people can get judgmental about one guess vs. another.

And as for making a choice, is it appropriate for people with vax side effects to be "sick shamed" because they chose the vax?  I mean for many if not most Americans, Covid symptoms are milder than the vax side effects.  But they are "taking one for the team," whereas people who want natural immunity are selfish and deserve to be cut off from the health system.

Well first of all, I did not ignore all those people, I specifically said this did not apply to them when I said "people [insert all caveats of no contraindications, age, etc that would prevent vaccination]" for this very reason. 

Secondly, I don't know what you're getting at. There are signs that having Covid (a difficult case that resulted in hospitalization, not just at home illness) does give an immune response at least 13 months out, it doesn't follow to assume or think that this is A) better immunity than the vaccines or B) extended to people with easier initial cases of Covid. In other words, natural immunity is variable and unassured, which is what I said with "and studies so far are being mixed as to it's efficacy vs vaccines for re-infection; and, this is probably going to be difficult to pin down because when you get sick you're not really controlling for the viral load,...". Your further assertion that "since it is unknown" we can't make a judgement, we certainly can still make a judgement about safety of catching Covid on purpose for immunity vs getting the vax for immunity. And certainly you aren't asserting that there is less potential side effects of catching Covid for natural immunity? Right?

And as for making a choice: I don't know where you're going with this paragraph. It's only 3 sentences long but I'm lost. Basically, there is a lot of projection that has nothing to do with my post, and some things I directly disagreed with, but you seem to be bringing up as an argument. Like??:

• Are you saying shame people who got sick despite being vac'd? I was saying shaming isn't okay/appropriate, so I'm not sure why you expect me to defend that preposterous idea as some sort of whataboutism rebuttal. And people are being vax-shamed, but I know that's not what you're talking about. You seem to be upset that people who got vaccinated and have normal vaccination side effects aren't being "shamed" like people who choose not to get vaccinated and then end up in hospital? As if one makes the other okay? Or ??
• And I would want to see a study based to back up your assertion, "for many if not most Americans, Covid symptoms are milder than the vax side effects." Since one of the Covid symptoms I've noticed is death, which has been much, much more rare for the vax; and I think 600,000+ Americans would qualify as "many". But assuming you mean just the run of the mill "it's like a flu" people, can I see the stats you are referencing? I was one of the hardest-hit here on the Board with my vax response of "side effects strong enough to interfere with normal activity lasted more than 72 hours" as one of 2 to respond as such for the Moderna vaccine. And even then, I would say I have had at least some common colds either worse or longer-lasting than my vax response. And as has been discussed on other threads, when people say "mild case" of Covid it can be a wide range and certainly still much worse than the term implies. 
• I did not say they deserved to be cut off from the health system (to quote myself, "Should they still be given the level of care possible? Yes.").
• I did not give motives such as selfish or any others in my post, just spoke about the resultant choice. My hyperbole of "you were given a get out of jail free card and chose to tear it up in Mr. Monopoly's face" perhaps implied a bit of judgement but overall I tried to keep it assumption-free. In the past I have asserted that I personally am okay with people choosing not to vaccinate so long as they were doing so from an informed position and understand their choice impacts others (1, 2, 3).

[KSera]

17 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

My concern is that promoting Ivermectin and HCQ is that it gives people a false security in something that has NOT been proven to actually help. If people took that PLUS got the vaccine and masked and social distanced and limited group size then I wouldn’t care. 

QFT. 

(With the caveat that if there’s not enough of the medication for people who need it for its proven indications, that’s problematic.)

[Frances]

3 minutes ago, rebot said:

Originally, I watched the news nightly, trying to figure out what was going on. Now I peruse a few sites that I trust. I think a lot of younger people rely on social media for their news, but I know my parents and IL's turn the tv on every night to get their news.

I've never been active on social media. I'm trying here because I lost my in person social circle when we moved. So far I like it. I tried Facebook, but wow. I feel like I have to be way more excited about what I eat for dinner and doing crafts with my kids to fit in there.

I laughed out loud at your last sentence and startled my dog. So true. 

[Halftime Hope]

48 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

My concern is that promoting Ivermectin and HCQ is that it gives people a false security in something that has NOT been proven to actually help. If people took that PLUS got the vaccine and masked and social distanced and limited group size then I wouldn’t care. 

Hmmm:  whose word to take for that? 

Per Dr. Tess Lawrie, who again, is an expert in Cochrane Methodology and does meta-analyses for a living...having seen many, many of these over the years: the data is unequivocal. 

Same from doctors whose actual practice is treating patients. 

I'm going with them. 

 

 

[Frances]

6 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

Hmmm:  whose word to take for that? 

Per Dr. Tess Lawrie, who again, is an expert in Cochrane Methodology and does meta-analyses for a living...having seen many, many of these over the years: the data is unequivocal. 

Same from doctors whose actual practice is treating patients. 

I'm going with them. 

 

 

I’d say that far, far more scientists and healthcare professionals working on covid and with covid patients would say vaccines are the best defense. I’m with @Jean in Newcastle. As long as people get vaccinated and follow mask and social distancing guidelines, I have no issue with people looking for a doctor who will prescribe their covid drugs of choice or acquiring them on their own where legal.

[Halftime Hope]

44 minutes ago, KSera said:

QFT. 

(With the caveat that if there’s not enough of the medication for people who need it for its proven indications, that’s problematic.)

This is nonsense. There is plenty of ivermectin, and honestly, it's not the only medication that can be used. But, back to it:  it can be made by any pharmaceutical company as it is made from fermented bacterial culture. There is one manufacturer in North America that is capable of supplying all that can possibly be needed for all of the continent. God knows how many more manufacturers there are. I know India is replete with pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities as are many other companies. This isn't high tech.  

What is is in short supply are the jabs. We might do a kindness for the world to try this instead of using boosters, to use this as part of a multi-drug regimen to treat breakthrough cases and normal cases.  It's much better than "do nothing, and then I'll see you in the ER in a week." 

[Halftime Hope]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

I’d say that far, far more scientists and healthcare professionals working on covid and with covid patients would say vaccines are the best defense. I’m with @Jean in Newcastle. As long as people get vaccinated and follow mask and social distancing guidelines, I have no issue with people looking for a doctor who will prescribe their covid drugs of choice or acquiring them on their own where legal.

OK, point taken.  I'm more concerned with treating everyone who is getting sick, no matter how they get it, and doing it early, thereby keeping most of them out of the hospital.  I never said do this instead of vaxxing; you all made that a straw man, as though the two were mutually exclusive. 

 

[Frances]

45 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

OK, point taken.  I'm more concerned with treating everyone who is getting sick, no matter how they get it, and doing it early, thereby keeping most of them out of the hospital.  I never said do this instead of vaxxing; you all made that a straw man, as though the two were mutually exclusive. 

 

They do seem to be for some people, such as @rebot and @Pen. With all of the different covid threads, it’s hard to keep track of who is for and against vaccines. I’m glad to hear you are vaccinated and pro-vaccine.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Frances

[KSera]

34 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

This is nonsense. There is plenty of ivermectin

I was basing that on having read that Canada has a shortage.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2021-47/issue-7-8-july-august-2021/covid-19-treating-strongyloides-ivermectin-patients.html
Inappropriate use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 may make it less available for patients with serious parasitic infections who could benefit from its use and worsen the current shortage of ivermectin in Canada. 

Incidentally, that page is primarily about use of ivermectin in Covid patients who need it for strongyloides infection. So, it’s not like there is no acknowledgment that there are cases where it is the right drug. 

[rebot]

24 minutes ago, Frances said:

They do seem to be for some people, such as @rebot. With all of the different covid threads, it’s hard to keep track of who is for and against vaccines. I’m glad to hear you are vaccinated and pro-vaccine.

I admit for me, at this time, the benefits don't outweigh the risks of the vaccine. I'm not saying I'm forever opposed. I'm saying when there is long term data, when I know that it isn't going to become a yearly booster, when I know it confers better immunity that can't be gotten through natural infection, when there is more research into the spike proteins (which I haven't mentioned because I know that's going to open a whole other can of worms) then I'll consider it.

I'm also the mom who doesn't give her kids ibuprofen to break a fever, pulls out lavender essential oil for bug bites, uses garlic olive oil for ear aches, etc... I'm not opposed to medicine (and I'm gratefully of our medical system, especially emergency care) but I like to let the bodies immune system take care of illness when possible. 

[Frances]

11 minutes ago, rebot said:

I admit for me, at this time, the benefits don't outweigh the risks of the vaccine. I'm not saying I'm forever opposed. I'm saying when there is long term data, when I know that it isn't going to become a yearly booster, when I know it confers better immunity that can't be gotten through natural infection, when there is more research into the spike proteins (which I haven't mentioned because I know that's going to open a whole other can of worms) then I'll consider it.

I'm also the mom who doesn't give her kids ibuprofen to break a fever, pulls out lavender essential oil for bug bites, uses garlic olive oil for ear aches, etc... I'm not opposed to medicine (and I'm gratefully of our medical system, especially emergency care) but I like to let the bodies immune system take care of illness when possible. 

Personally, I don’t take any medications except the very rare OTC allergy pill. My husband is very much an advocate of avoiding medications whenever possible, despite being a healthcare provider. But we do get all recommended vaccines, including for covid. And we get yearly flu shots. As far as I know, none of us have ever had the flu, at least not as adults.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Frances

[Frances]

16 minutes ago, KSera said:

I was basing that on having read that Canada has a shortage.

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publications/canada-communicable-disease-report-ccdr/monthly-issue/2021-47/issue-7-8-july-august-2021/covid-19-treating-strongyloides-ivermectin-patients.html
Inappropriate use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 may make it less available for patients with serious parasitic infections who could benefit from its use and worsen the current shortage of ivermectin in Canada. 

Incidentally, that page is primarily about use of ivermectin in Covid patients who need it for strongyloides infection. So, it’s not like there is no acknowledgment that there are cases where it is the right drug. 

Even before covid, drug shortages were a pretty big thing. At times there were even shortages of simple things like saline IV bags. Lots of drugs are made by very few manufacturers, often either due to cost/complexity or very small profit margins. So even one manufacturer slowing or temporarily halting production can have a huge effect on the supply chain. And of course we are not in normal times right now.

[Dmmetler]

First I’ve seen of this one. Hoping it pans out in further trials. https://www.foxnews.com/health/cholesterol-drug-coronavirus-infection

[rebot]

2 minutes ago, Frances said:

Personally, I don’t take any medications except the very rare OTC allergy pill. My husband is very much an advocate of avoiding medications whenever possible, despite being ga healthcare provider. But we do get all recommended vaccines, including for covid.

I think most people on here are in agreement that everyone should be able to make their own choices when it comes to which medicines to take. It gets sticky when it comes to vaccines.

Honestly, I'm a maybe for the covid vaccine someday, but not if it's determined that I can have as good of immunity with natural infection. I don't see my kids taking it anytime soon. The risks outweigh the benefits for their age group. They also don't receive the flu shot and haven't received the HPV vaccine.

What I keep saying, but it somehow gets twisted around every time, is that I understand that I may be a risk to be around. To combat that, I am willing to be exposed, get sick, quarantine and recover in order to start living life again. Yes, I understand the implications of this statement.

[Jean in Newcastle]

In theory, I don’t have an issue with every one making their own choice regarding vaccines. But my heart hurts when actual people (not bots) miscalculate, get severely ill and even die. (Not saying that everyone who waits or refuses a vaccine will get sick and if they do, will get severe Covid.  But some have. ). 
 

Also- I know that this will infuriate some but people who refuse vaccines (whether temporarily or not) should be the ones staying out of stores, restaurants, theaters etc while the rest of us get to “start living life again “. They have the choice of a vaccine and refused it. That is a reasonable consequence for that choice. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Jean in Newcastle
Typo

[KSera]

48 minutes ago, rebot said:

I’m also the mom who doesn't give her kids ibuprofen to break a fever, pulls out lavender essential oil for bug bites, uses garlic olive oil for ear aches, etc... I'm not opposed to medicine (and I'm gratefully of our medical system, especially emergency care) but I like to let the bodies immune system take care of illness when possible. 

I do all the same, right down to the garlic olive oil (and occasionally a warm onion compress 😁). In the case of Covid, the cost benefit analysis to me was clear in the other direction.  It’s true we may need boosters, but I’d rather live long enough to find out (and without a frightening hospital stay along the way) than take a gamble that I’m among those that will do fine with Covid. The risk if I’m not is way too high a price to me to pay for the “what if” chance of some unknown thing down the road, especially considering that hasn’t been a thing for vaccines in the past. Covid poses an immediate risk to me now, so that’s the most important thing for me to address, and the vaccine is the very best thing we have to keep me safe if I get it. 

[Stacia]

9 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

And if people really want to do "Covid parties" and then isolate until they have naturally occurring immunity [for an unknown amount of time], I suppose that's their choice, too. Except that has the opportunity to land them in the hospital, much greater chance than getting the vaccine.

><snip><

Should they still be given the level of care possible? Yes. Should they be treated with human decency? Yes. Should they be told it isn't their fault and they are just victims of chance? Not really. Should their feelings be coddled when they say they couldn't do anything to avoid it? Not necessary.

><snip><

...I am just not absolving them of the responsibility they now carry in this scenario. And this isn't even addressing the societal cost that this approach brings. They did not do a simple step available to everyone, and did not use their agency to both save themselves and help out society as a whole. 

Yep.

A lot of the unvaxxed are now completely clogging the medical resources throughout much of the country. Our system is breaking down. That's now. I also foresee that we'll have many who leave the medical field after making it through this pandemic (not to mention those who have already died from covid or will suffer long-term effects from getting it while treating others), leaving us with fewer medical professionals for the long term. And fewer resources & trained medical people down the road might be a challenge with the possibility of long-term covid patients that will need care & treatment.

My bil (fully vaxxed) had to have emergency surgery Thursday. It was outpatient & he was home, but had to go to the ER yesterday, due to lots of pain & infection from the surgery. Guess what? The ER was overwhelmed from covid surge. (The covid+ were asked to wait in their cars until being able to be treated &, even so, some were still refusing to mask while inside. Because of course....) Bil waited for hours & hours in agony before they could triage & treat him because hospital resources were so overwhelmed with covid patients.

I hate to think how bad it is if someone ends up in a car wreck & needs medical care. Or has a heart attack. A stroke. Anaphylactic reaction. Appendicitis. Broken arm. Or any other normal reason one might need an ER or hospital. Because normally our medical system & people work hard to treat those incoming, regardless of injury or illness. But they can't do that anymore because they are being inundated, absolutely overwhelmed with Delta covid patients (mostly the unvaxxed). Which means everyone else is getting substandard care (or no care at all). Lack of space, lack of resources, just lack of... everything.

Is it "shaming" to point that out?

No, vaccines won't eradicate the disease (at this point). No, there's no guarantee you won't get sick even if you did get the vaccine. (But you would be much less likely to be sick in the first place & if it did happen, it would likely be a milder case.) More people choosing to vaccinate would have flattened the curve. That was the goal. Not eradicating disease but flattening the curve. (Flattening the curve also helps protect those who legitimately can't vaccinate &/or are immunocompromised.) But we haven't flattened the curve. Frankly I'm not sure we will ever flatten the curve (unless a lot more people choose to get vaxxed or a lot more people die). If we don't flatten the curve, this virus will keep mutating, likely putting us back at square one. Or on a different (& perhaps equally or more unpleasant) playing board altogether.

[Yes, I realize there's the "but what about those who can't get the vaccine" chant .... Of course I'm exempting them, just as I'm exempting kids under 12yo who can't get the vaccine.]

If everyone who legitimately could get the vaccine would get the vaccine, then we wouldn't be having this breakdown of our medical systems, overwhelm of medical professionals, and continuing life in this hell that is pandemic world.

I'm not sure why those who refuse vaccines seem to think that over 600,000 dead in the US alone (or over four million people worldwide) is an ok number & that they are ok with the number growing. Because it will be more. And not just more covid deaths (majority currently among the unvaxxed) but from all the other deaths that occur because people can't be properly treated due to covid surges taking most medical resources.

It is absolutely heartbreaking. And horrifying.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Stacia

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, rebot said:

I admit for me, at this time, the benefits don't outweigh the risks of the vaccine. I'm not saying I'm forever opposed. I'm saying when there is long term data, when I know that it isn't going to become a yearly booster, when I know it confers better immunity that can't be gotten through natural infection, when there is more research into the spike proteins (which I haven't mentioned because I know that's going to open a whole other can of worms) then I'll consider it.

I'm also the mom who doesn't give her kids ibuprofen to break a fever, pulls out lavender essential oil for bug bites, uses garlic olive oil for ear aches, etc... I'm not opposed to medicine (and I'm gratefully of our medical system, especially emergency care) but I like to let the bodies immune system take care of illness when possible. 

Why are people saying they don't want the shot if they need boosters? Vaccines often need more than 2 doses to get good results. Hep B, DTaP, Polio, etc etc. 

And even if immunity is as good with natural infection - the risks are higher. They just are. If they were higher for the vaccine, we'd have hospitals clogged up with vaccine reactions, instead of clogged up with unvaccinated Covid patients. Your risk of leaving your kids without a mother is higher with getting Covid than with getting the vaccine. It just is.