COVID-19 Coronavirus current events

Mendel

Senior Member.
I don't think I have ever made either of those valued judgements. Certainly not with the direct causal link you suggest.
I interpreted your "balance between economic cost versus the "cost" of illnesses and deaths" as acknowledging this type of trade-off. If you say that's a valid way to frame the issue, then you acknowledge that the trade-off is real.

Me saying this is actually a political issue leaves it open whether this as a real trade-off or a perceived one; and it's also a political issue whether a country is able to impose a hard lockdown that disposes of the disease within weeks, or not, as is the cost and effectiveness of the possible interventions.

There is actually data on the economic impact of the Spanish Flu, and medium-term cities that locked down didn't do worse; it's kinda hard to tell because locking down or not loosely correlated with how much a city was growing anyway. I can try and hunt the source down for that, I remember reading about it last year in the spring. (Maybe I even posted about it here.)

To become more personal, "economy" often simply means "rich people". Tax breaks for corporations and rich people being "good for the economy" seems to be a myth, but they're definitely good for corporations and rich people. Same with not caring for the health of employees: definitely good for employers, but doubtful it's good for "the economy". But if you get paid by the big employers, you'll tell the public the latter and not the former.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Active Member
I interpreted your "balance between economic cost versus the "cost" of illnesses and deaths" as acknowledging this type of trade-off. If you say that's a valid way to frame the issue, then you acknowledge that the trade-off is real.

I saw it more as a reference to a moral choice between losing money in the short term, and human lives (which is obviously also a political choice faced by many governments the world over). Not as a denial of the fact that the cost of human lives and rampant infections will also result in significant money loss. Perhaps greater loss than the economic shock caused by lockdowns. The statement by @econ41 need not be read in a black and white fashion.

It's very uneconomical, as well as unhealthy, conversationally to build one's whole argument on a misinterpretation of what the other one writes. It's not the first time.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But I haven't had time to examine the data and see if it's really bunk or not.
you can maybe just look at Florida. I know the media focuses in on FLorida as some evil scapegoat but the truth is compared to many other states, they kept their economy much more open from the beginning and still had lower infections. Which is why DeSantis thinks he is on the right path..he is on the same path as before pretty much. even now the numbers aren't as horrific as the media would have you believe (compared to other states anyway.. obviously any hospitalization is horrible).

Although it also depends on each areas economy. Florida unluckily gets alot of income from tourism. Like NYC.
Where as China and probably California etc profit from alot of import/export stuff. and/or tech profit. Basically stuff immune to lockdowns.

It's probably super complicated to figure out. Just like covid numbers are always so complicated.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
[Florida] still had lower infections
Data to back up that claim please?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ puts Florida in 6th place, only 6% shy of the highest rate in the country (RI), despite having a sub-par testing regime (24th place, with less than 40% of the testing of RI). It does do better on the kaputniks-per-kapita metric, a mediocre 22nd place, but that wasn't your claim. (Purely for comparison, were Florida to secede, it would be 10th in the world by cases, 34th for testing, and 20th for deaths.) Of course, these positions are in almost consant flux, but FL does look like it's more serious about increasing its stats than many other states right now.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
the economic shock caused by lockdowns
do you have data on how much of a "shock" a lockdown really is, in the medium term?

the main paradox has always been that if you didnt lock down properly early, you just had to lock down more later, so the short term economic benefit disappears

if the numbers get too bad, people get afraid to leave the house

but like I said, data would be nice
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
puts Florida in 6th place, only 6% shy of the highest rate in the country
i said "had"

Article:
Broadly speaking, we found that Florida’s record, at least as of the beginning of December, compared favorably with most states across the country, including those with tighter restrictions. Specifically, in comparisons of coronavirus cases deaths and hospitalizations per capita, Florida ranked among the best, and better than some of the more highly regulated states. (Click on the chart to see separate comparisons for cases, deaths, and hospitalizations.)
 

FatPhil

Active Member
i said "had"
You also said "even now".
Article:
Broadly speaking, we found that Florida’s record, at least as of the beginning of December, compared favorably with most states across the country, including those with tighter restrictions. Specifically, in comparisons of coronavirus cases deaths and hospitalizations per capita, Florida ranked among the best, and better than some of the more highly regulated states. (Click on the chart to see separate comparisons for cases, deaths, and hospitalizations.)
Data from 2020, seriously?
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
do you have data on how much of a "shock" a lockdown really is, in the medium term?

Only macroeconomic datasets which point to the medium term shock effects of both lockdowns as well as voluntary social distancing measures:

Article:
To contain the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and protect susceptible populations, most countries imposed stringent lockdown measures in the first half of 2020. Meanwhile, economic activity contracted dramatically
on a global scale. This chapter aims to dissect the nature of the economic crisis in the first seven months of the pandemic. It finds that the adoption of lockdowns was an important factor in the recession, but voluntary social distancing in response to rising infections also contributed very substantially to the economic contraction.

Therefore, although easing lockdowns can lead to a partial recovery, economic activity is likely to remain subdued until health risks abate.


March-August 2020 GDP growth rate by country compared with lockdown policies by country during the same period are also one such metric. There's no global comparative study and obviously we're still too early for a final assessment. It's also quite a complex metric owing to the vast diversity of measures that have been billed a 'lockdown'.

We do know from data that for example the highly similar economies of neighbours Sweden and Finland both took similar hits despite the famously lax lockdown policy of the former during the initial months. But it has also been argued that Sweden which is more export-dependent took those hits primarily due to global lockdown. In terms of long term impacts, jury is still out for everyone. Sweden lost much more of its population per capita to the virus by not imposing early lockdowns compared to Finland, Norway and Denmark.

the main paradox has always been that if you didnt lock down properly early, you just had to lock down more later, so the short term economic benefit disappears

Indeed. There's even a fancy new term coined for the consequence of repetitive lockdowns, namely 'lockdown fatigue'. Even if the initial lockdowns were somewhat stringent, the following lockdowns tend to become progressively more relaxed. And where the second or third lockdown has also been strict on paper, there's been increased flouting of lockdown restrictions except where draconian military control is upheld.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
Deirdre:
...Florida ... had lower infections.
Also Deirdre:
i said "had"

Article:
Broadly speaking, we found that Florida’s record, at least as of the beginning of December, compared favorably with most states across the country, including those with tighter restrictions. Specifically, in comparisons of coronavirus cases deaths and hospitalizations per capita, Florida ranked among the best, and better than some of the more highly regulated states. (Click on the chart to see separate comparisons for cases, deaths, and hospitalizations.)

This is deceptive.
I have data downloaded from Worldometers since June 5th of last year.

As of June 5th, Florida was below mean and median both in terms of cases and deaths per population (although just barely below median in deaths). At that time, The numbers in the nation were dominated by the first wave which hit predominantly the North-East, and during which lessons were not yet learned, good masks not generally available, etc.

By December 5th, half a year later, Florida was already slightly above mean and median in terms of both cases and deaths per capita,

Which means that between June 5th and and December 5th, at a time when states significantly differed in policies, and the dynamics of the epidemic differed significantly between Democratic and Republican states (*), Florida was more clearly above mean and median in both numbers.

Between Dec 5th and March 5th, when the big winter waves rolled through, the nation was less divided along political lines, and Florida was a bit below averages.

Since March 5th, when again the Covid-map is more aligned with the political map (**), Florida is the worst state in new cases per capita and the third-worst in new deaths per capita.

So, all in all, Florida was lucky to not have been among the states that were hit early and hard by the first wave; since then, it has performed below average, as have the majority of Republican states.


(*) In that period, June 5th-December 5th, 12 of the 15 states with the highest case rates were Republican, 14 of the 15 with the lowest case rates were Democratic.
(**) Since June 19th, i.e. in the last 2 months, 18 of the 20 states with the highest rate of new cases are Republican, 16 of the 20 with the lowest case rate are Democratic.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
This is deceptive.
How is it deceptive? your alleged "numbers" jive with what i said. The topic was illness vs the economy.

this is June 8th this year, which is before Florida got hit by Delta hard.

Article:
South Dakota's economy is at 106% of its pre-pandemic strength, according to the index, while Florida's economy is at 101%. The other three states are operating at 100% of pre-Covid level.
Nebraska and South Dakota also have the lowest unemployment rates in the country at 2.8% as of April compared to the nation-wide rate of 6.1%. Although New Hampshire and Utah are also at 2.8% for joblessness, their performances on the back-to-normal index are lower, at 95% and 94% respectively.
New York -— the pandemic's epicenter in the early months of the outbreak — has the furthest to go to get back to normal. The state is operating at only 79% of its pre-pandemic level, and its April unemployment rate was the third highest in the nation at 8.2% behind only Hawaii and California.


and June 5th regarding California who was very strict in lock downs (ie. less deaths, relatively stable economy)

Article:
Despite conflicting political narratives over the impact of business closures, mask mandates and social distancing rules, states with stringent interventions such as California generally have had a more robust economic recovery than states with looser rules, according to Nickelsburg’s analysis.

California had less of a contraction last year than Texas, Florida and Indiana, states with fewer restrictions, data show. Overall, economic output shrank 3.5% on average for the U.S., compared with 2.8% for California.


But as i said you cant just compare straight numbers because different states have different industries they pull money in from.


Florida is the worst state in new cases per capita and the third-worst in new deaths per capita.
where are you seeing 3rd worse?
1629558677088.png
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/
 

Oystein

Senior Member
How is it deceptive? your alleged "numbers" jive with what i said.
No.
Your quote specifically said that "Florida’s record, at least as of the beginning of December, compared favorably with most states across the country, including those with tighter restrictions" - this was FALSE as of December 5th, when Florida was slightly below the median and mean.
Your quote also said that "Specifically, in comparisons of coronavirus cases deaths and hospitalizations per capita, Florida ranked among the best" - and that was even more FALSE with regards to cases and deaths (I have no numbers on hospitalizations).

The topic was illness vs the economy.
Wrong. Economy wasn't part of the topic of the quote I responded to, nor of my response.

As I wrote: In the numbers since March 5th.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Your quote specifically said that "Florida’s record, at least as of the beginning of December, compared favorably with most states across the country, including those with tighter restrictions" - this was FALSE as of December 5th, when Florida was slightly below the median and mean.
Your quote also said that "Specifically, in comparisons of coronavirus cases deaths and hospitalizations per capita, Florida ranked among the best" - and that was even more FALSE with regards to cases and deaths (I have no numbers on hospitalizations).
well i guess i'll just have to blindly believe you that the Tampa Bay newspaper got it so wrong. ok.

As I wrote: In the numbers since March 5th.
oh. well that's ridiculous, every area is highest when it's their turn to get hit. and has nothing to do with the Tampa Bay article you were calling deceptive.
8-21-2021 11-28-07 AM.jpg

As of July 3rd EVERY state was open. Florida has fairly decent vaccinations rates, masks and vaccine galore (for those that want to use them), good supply stocks, advanced treatment options (compared to Connecticut, NJ and NY during their hits), they focused on protecting their old populations and medically fragile early on...unlike the NorthEast wave etc.

I must be missing the point you are trying to make.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
well i guess i'll just have to blindly believe you that the Tampa Bay newspaper got it so wrong. ok.
sorry, its Politifact that got it so wrong. Kinda sucks when we cant trust the Fact Checkers huh?
Article:
Is Florida doing better on coronavirus than ‘locked down’ states? | PolitiFact



https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ida-doing-better-covid-19-locked-down-states/
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Are there websites that plot data for states in one chart? Like below, but for states instead of countries.


The CDC in its great wisdom plots days since the first outbreak instead of the date.

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#compare-trends_comptrends-cases-daily-rate-lin
compare-state-trends.png
Even in that chart you can see California getting hit in November with the California (Epsilon) variant, while Florida wasn't hit as hard, but now all states got hit with the Delta variant, and Florida has the higher case rate.
 

Ravi

Active Member
Must say the happenings currently in Australia are a bit uhm, well, frightening.. They seem to get a little nutty very quickly.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Must say the happenings currently in Australia are a bit uhm, well, frightening.. They seem to get a little nutty very quickly.
Concerning but keep it in perspective. "We" seem to have been affected by apathy following early success of "lock out" and "lock down". The current surge is still small by some comparisons even tho it contrasts with many months of zero or single digit case numbers at state level.

COVID4_2021-08-27_06-19-12.png
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
Must say the happenings currently in Australia are a bit uhm, well, frightening.. They seem to get a little nutty very quickly.


yes NSW a State appears to be going with a get 70 % vaxed and live with it, while others still set on eradication and some States just hoping with isolation. Meanwhile the various political & public positions nuances play out.. ask us in 6 months see how its unfolded


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08...-covid-cave-problem-lockdown-states/100407514

 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Source: https://twitter.com/MSignorile/status/1431749972874125312?s=20
(screenshot of Tweet is attached)

From the "nursing" subreddit (with many comments from other nurses):
Article:
Uhh, are any of these unvaccinated patients in ICUs making it?(self.nursing)

In the last few weeks, I think every patient that I've taken care of that is covid positive, unvaccinated, with a comorbidity or two (not talking about out massive laundry list type patients), and was intubated, proned, etc., have only been able to leave the unit if they were comfort care or if they were transferring to the morgue. The one patient I saw transfer out, came back the same shift, then went to the morgue. Curious if other critical care units are experiencing the same thing.


P.S.: "Comfort care is an essential part of medical care at the end of life. It is care that helps or soothes a person who is dying. The goals are to prevent or relieve suffering as much as possible and to improve quality of life while respecting the dying person's wishes." ( https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/providing-comfort-end-life )
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    20 KB · Views: 52

Mendel

Senior Member.
Article:
A Butler County Common Pleas judge is ordering doctors at West Chester Hospital to treat a COVID-19 patient with Ivermectin, a drug commonly used as a livestock dewormer.

Judge Gregory Howard wrote that doctors treating 51-year-old Jeffery Smith "shall immediately administer Ivermectin" to Smith, according to court documents. Smith will receive 30mg of the drug for three weeks.

The case was brought to court by Smith's wife and guardian, Julie, after Smith was hospitalized with COVID-19 and placed on a ventilator in West Chester Hospital.

After Smith was on the ventilator for 19 days, Julie reached out to Dr. Fred Wagshul about Ivermectin usage to treat COVID-19, according to court documents. Wagshul prescribed 30mg of Ivermectin to Smith, but the hospital staff refused to administer this prescription.

Ivermectin is toxic in high doses (as would be administered to animals), and after a big study had to be withdrawn, it's likely that it doesn't help against Covid at all. We'll know more once some of the ongoing big studies post results.
Article:
The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
Ivermectin is toxic in high doses (as would be administered to animals), and after a big study had to be withdrawn, it's likely that it doesn't help against Covid at all. We'll know more once some of the ongoing big studies post results.
Article:
The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.
Lots of drugs are toxic in high doses, even Tylenol.
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials concluded that ivermectin doesn't treat COVID-19.

Article:
Ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract​

Background: We systematically assessed benefits and harms of the use of ivermectin (IVM) in COVID-19 patients.
Methods: Published and preprint randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing IVM effects on COVID-19 adult patients were searched until March 22, 2021 in five engines. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, length of stay (LOS), and adverse events (AE). Secondary outcomes included viral clearance and severe AEs. Risk of bias (RoB) was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2·0 tool. Inverse variance random effect meta-analyses were performed. with quality of evidence (QoE) evaluated using GRADE methodology.
Results: Ten RCTs (n=1173) were included. Controls were standard of care [SOC] in five RCTs and placebo in five RCTs. COVID-19 disease severity was mild in 8 RCTs, moderate in one RCT, and mild and moderate in one RCT. IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality vs. controls (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.12 to 1.13, very low QoE) or LOS vs. controls (MD 0.72 days, 95%CI -0.86 to 2.29, very low QoE). AEs, severe AE and viral clearance were similar between IVM and controls (all outcomes: low QoE). Subgroups by severity of COVID-19 or RoB were mostly consistent with main analyses; all-cause mortality in three RCTs at high RoB was reduced with IVM.
Conclusions: In comparison to SOC or placebo, IVM did not reduce all-cause mortality, length of stay or viral clearance in RCTs in COVID-19 patients with mostly mild disease. IVM did not have an effect on AEs or severe AEs. IVM is not a viable option to treat COVID-19 patients.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
The difference is that you can't buy a horse-sized Tylenol in the store, which is why I've explicitly mentioned this for Ivermectin.
Right, but people do overdose on Tylenol because it's an ingredient in many drugs, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work when it's used correctly. Ivermectin, however, was no better than a placebo or the standard of care.
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Well here's a thing...

"A suburban Cincinnati woman, whose husband has been on a ventilator at West Chester Hospital with COVID-19, won a court order forcing the hospital to treat her husband's novel coronavirus infection with an antiparasitic treatment commonly used for livestock.

The case is one of a handful nationwide where courts have sided with family members and forced doctors to use ivermectin, which is unproven in the treatment of COVID-19 and is not recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Jeffrey Smith, 51, came down with COVID-19 in early July and has been in the intensive care unit at the UC Health-run hospital in Butler County for weeks. His wife, Julie Smith, asked on Aug. 20 for the emergency order for the use of ivermectin in Butler County Common Pleas Court. "

Further details at... https://www.cincinnati.com/story/ne...pital-treat-covid-19-patient-drug/5647432001/
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Well here's a thing...
More on that 4 posts above yours, in #471.

Ivermectin is also approved to treat head lice and worms in humans, but obviously at a much lower dose than livestock, owing to the smaller body size.

And honestly, Mr. Smith is most likely going to die either way.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
My OZ State Covid case numbers even with lockdown restrictions wont go down. So the Government realizing this is now set on get 70% + vaxed live with it with rules to keep a lid on it..

https://www.news.com.au/world/coron...d/news-story/5eabfc17c7eacada2d1a83d9a7afa49d

 
Ironically growing up in NZ where there would often be ads on TV for drenching your sheep with Ivermectin thus I associate the two together
Yet the ones taking the vaccines are the 'sheeple' :D

Also I do noticed the biggest NZ news websites hasn't mentioned that a young NZ lady died from a side effect of the vaccine, I assume to not cause vaccine hesitancy. I wonder if this was self censorship on their part or did the NZ government say please don't report on this?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Myocarditis is a very rare side effect of the Covid vaccination, it's rarer than getting myocarditis from Covid, and since it's not caused by a real virus, much easier to survive. I've heard the claim that it correlates with incorrectly adminstered vaccine shots (into a blood vessel instead of into a muscle), but haven't seen evidence of that.

This study saw a 1:100,000 risk of myocarditis:
Article:
Question Should myocarditis be considered a potential adverse event following immunization with messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines?

Findings In this case series of 23 male patients, including 22 previously healthy military members, myocarditis was identified within 4 days of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine. For most patients (n = 20), the diagnosis was made after the second dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine; these episodes occurred against the backdrop of 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines administered.

Meaning Vigilance for rare adverse events, including myocarditis, after COVID-19 vaccination is warranted but should not diminish overall confidence in vaccination during the current pandemic.

All of these risks are getting factored into a vaccine recommendation, and big risks would get identified in the clinical trials ne essary to get a vaccine approved.
 

Agent K

Senior Member
This study saw a 1:100,000 risk of myocarditis
For 16- and 17-year-old boys, the risk is 1:13,700.
Article:
According to an analysis presented by a C.D.C. scientist on Monday, every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine administered to 16- and 17-year-old boys would be expected to cause 73 cases of the heart problems, while preventing more than 56,000 Covid-19 cases and 500 related hospitalizations.

Previously, the CDC estimated that a million doses of the Pfizer vaccine administered to 18 to 29-year old men would cause 22-27 cases of myocarditis, while preventing 9,600 COVID-19 cases and 300 hospitalizations over 4 months, assuming the vaccine is 95% effective.
Article:
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccine analysis assumed 95% vaccine effectiveness in preventing severe outcomes and in preventing COVID-19 cases for a 120-day-period.
 
Last edited:

Greene

New Member
Article:
A Butler County Common Pleas judge is ordering doctors at West Chester Hospital to treat a COVID-19 patient with Ivermectin, a drug commonly used as a livestock dewormer.

Judge Gregory Howard wrote that doctors treating 51-year-old Jeffery Smith "shall immediately administer Ivermectin" to Smith, according to court documents. Smith will receive 30mg of the drug for three weeks.

The case was brought to court by Smith's wife and guardian, Julie, after Smith was hospitalized with COVID-19 and placed on a ventilator in West Chester Hospital.

After Smith was on the ventilator for 19 days, Julie reached out to Dr. Fred Wagshul about Ivermectin usage to treat COVID-19, according to court documents. Wagshul prescribed 30mg of Ivermectin to Smith, but the hospital staff refused to administer this prescription.

Oh joy, I used to live off the next exit south of that hospital.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
I mentioned somewhere else that in the UK the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the official advisory body on vaccination policy, was resisting pressure to recommend general Covid vaccination for otherwise healthy children below the age of 16, i.e. those without serious pre-existing conditions. The Committee was widely expected to reverse this position in their meeting yesterday, and recommend vaccination for 12-15-year olds. In the event they decided to maintain their position, apart from some extension of the exceptions to the general rule. In announcing this the chairman said:

For otherwise healthy 12 to 15 year old children, their risk of severe COVID-19 disease is small and therefore the potential for benefit from COVID-19 vaccination is also small. The JCVI’s view is that overall, the health benefits from COVID-19 vaccination to healthy children aged 12 to 15 years are marginally greater than the potential harms.

Taking a precautionary approach, this margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal COVID-19 vaccination for this age group at this time. The committee will continue to review safety data as they emerge.

The Committee did however accept that the Government might legitimately take account of other factors, such as the effects of illness on children's education, in deciding whether to change the policy, and recommended that the Chief Medical Officers for the various countries (Chris Whitty in England and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) should give further advice to the Government. It is considered likely that the CMOs will recommend making the vaccines available to all 12-15s, subject to parental consent.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    52.7 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:

Agent K

Senior Member
Article:
A Butler County Common Pleas judge is ordering doctors at West Chester Hospital to treat a COVID-19 patient with Ivermectin, a drug commonly used as a livestock dewormer.

Judge Gregory Howard wrote that doctors treating 51-year-old Jeffery Smith "shall immediately administer Ivermectin" to Smith, according to court documents. Smith will receive 30mg of the drug for three weeks.

The case was brought to court by Smith's wife and guardian, Julie, after Smith was hospitalized with COVID-19 and placed on a ventilator in West Chester Hospital.

After Smith was on the ventilator for 19 days, Julie reached out to Dr. Fred Wagshul about Ivermectin usage to treat COVID-19, according to court documents. Wagshul prescribed 30mg of Ivermectin to Smith, but the hospital staff refused to administer this prescription.
That order was overturned by another judge.
Article:
Judge says Ohio hospital cannot be forced to use ivermectin to treat Covid, reversing earlier decision

A judge ruled Monday that an Ohio hospital cannot be forced to give a patient ivermectin for Covid-19, reversing an earlier decision that ordered it to administer a parasite medication that has not been approved to treat the disease.

In an 11-page decision, Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Michael Oster Jr. wrote that there “was no doubt that the medical and scientific communities do not support the use of ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19.”
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
That order was overturned by another judge.
More details:
Article:
Wagshul said in court last week he thinks ivermectin is “very, very effective” against COVID-19. As it turns out, Wagshul knew nothing about Smith before prescribing the drug, he said while in court. [...]

Jonathan Davidson, the attorney representing the Smith family, sent a statement to FOX19 NOW following the ruling:

“We are certainly disappointed with the court’s decision today. I know this was a decision that Judge Oster did not take lightly. “Fortunately, Mr. Smith was able to receive 14 days of treatment of ivermectin, during which time his condition did improve. “While he has likely received his last dose at UC West Chester Hospital, we can only hope his condition continues to trend positively.”
 

Ravi

Active Member
Right. So today is the day the Netherlands changed the covid rules again. This time the 1.5 meter distancing and the face masks are gone.

But, now one needs to have an app, or printed QR code (proving double vaccination), to access cafes, bars, restaurants, basically all the whole catering industry. But, also museums and other social places now require a valid QR code.

This is a big thing imo. And I can tell it divides, polarises the population. BAD. This is BAD.
I am fully vaccinated, but I refuse to show QR codes.
 

Fallingdown

Member
Mercola is also addressing the wrong question by comparing infection survivors with vaccinated people who were never infected in the first place. If you have survived an infection, what you really want to know is whether a vaccination will give you additional protection, and there's evidence that it does:
Article:
The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection.

Note that they're comparing infection survivors without vaccinations against infection survivors with vaccinations, which is right on point.

If you have been infected, and don't want to catch Covid again, get vaccinated.

June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated.

The 2.34 odds are compared to what?

The 100% of infected people used in that study.(268 people) Or a 2.34 greater chance of the near 1% chance of being reinfected in the first place ?

I think the 1% number is on the high end. Frustratingly hard to find a percentage on reinfection.

So I used one of the studies touting the benefits of natural antibodies and vaccination.





392C84BF-732E-488F-A73C-F4C38145E5A9.jpeg
Even in this study they wouldn’t tell you how much more it protects you.

While reading the study I found their data came from model three.



796BC46E-C7AC-4D0C-81E4-FF1456F1D604.jpeg

Then I did the math.

14,029 people were matched for this study . About 7000 in each group. Out of the people with just natural immunity 37 were reinfected which is .52% of the group. Out of the 7000 people with natural immunity and a vaccination 20 were infected or .286% Which is a overall benefit of less than .25% .

Not not much of a boost in my opinion.

To me the omission looks lintentional.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
 

Attachments

  • 1223088E-F4FD-4373-9119-D43E98237D1F.jpeg
    1223088E-F4FD-4373-9119-D43E98237D1F.jpeg
    230 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Before I delve into the details, let me go over some basics so we're on the same page.

The risk of getting infected with Covid is variable.It varies with the amount of exposure (i.e. how many people are running around in your neighborhood who have Covid) and the length of exposure (roughly speaking, we're going to have twice the risk if we consider 2 months, compared to 1 month, if all else is equal).

Any study covers a specific place and a specific time, and to be able to generalize from it, we're going to want the result to be independent of the specific risk in that place at that time. That's why you are having a hard time finding some of these numbers: if you could find them, they probably wouldn't apply to your situation.
What we get is a comparison along the lines of "twice as effective" which we can then adapt to our situation.

Another important point is that to reap "the benefits of natural antibodies", we have to get Covid and survive. This is a much more dangerous process than getting vaccinated, both in terms of primary outcomes like death or permanent lung damage and in terms of side effects like myocarditis. If we're comparing "previously infected" with vaccinated persons, we need to understand that to go from being uninfected and unvaccinated to being "previously infected" involves a big risk in and of itself.

The 2.34 odds are compared to what?

In the Kentucky study mentioned in https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html , they looked for people who had a Covid infection in 2020 and then got reinfected in May or June 2021, and found 246 overall. For each of these 246 people, they picked 2 more who had been infected in the same week and had the same age and sex, but didn't get reinfected in 2021; that's 492 people as controls. They then looked up whether the reinfected people had been vaccinated at the time they got reinfected, and looked up the same thing for their 2 matching control persons. This resulted in the following table:

reinfectednot reinfected (controls)
not vaccinated179284
partially vaccinated1739
fully vaccinated50169

If the vaccine had no effect, we'd expect approximately the same ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated people in both columns. Among the controls, we have 169 vaccinated for 284 unvaccinated, that's 169/284=59.5%; so we'd expect59.5%*179=107 fully vaccinated people in the "reinfected column". But there were actually only 50. This means that being vaccinated (on top of having been infected in 2020) meant you were only half as likely to catch Covid-19 again in May or June 2021 in Kentucky. (The odds ratio in the paper is slightly more than 107/50 for reasons I don't understand, but that probably have to do with accounting for the partially vaccinated people. And the accuracy is not that great on account of the small sample size; the actual odds ratio is probably somewhere between 1.5 and 3.)

So why does this generalize for other places and times with different infection risks? It does because the controls were carefully chosen so that the infection risk for the reinfected and the exposed was exactly the same, so it cancels out. The fact that we have fewer vaccinated reinfected wouldn't have been any different if there had been more or less people infected overall. We're seeing that the reinfections have proportionally more unvaccinated people, and therefore we conclude that the vaccination protects.

This is similar to the observation that there are far more unvaccinated people in the ICUs with Covid compared to vaccinated people than we'd expect, based on how many people have actually been vaccinated. You know that vaccination helps if vaccinated people don't have to go to the hospital as much.

I'm going to comment on the other study you mention in a separate post.
 

Fallingdown

Member
We're seeing that the reinfections have proportionally more unvaccinated people, and therefore we conclude that the vaccination protects.

I understand they only studied the group of 246 people then relayed those findings.

But I’m still fixated on why they did not give a starting point.
A statistical analysis should provide all data.

Let’s start at the beginning X is the total number of the group and Y is the total number of people infected from that group. My first question would be Y is what percent of X .

My rationale behind it is that they did “partially” include that first very basic calculation in the study I quoted. Those figures told us that only a very small percent got infected out of the group of 7000 .

Not telling us that number leaves out vital information one might need to calculate their risk.

Advertisers have a similar deceptive practice .

For instance.....

Everyone at one point in their life has seen a can or package of decaf coffee claiming it’s 97% caffeine free.

What the they don’t mention that on average coffee is 98% caffeine free in the first place.

Caffeine content varies by beverage type and preparation. The amount of caffeine in tea or coffee can vary significantly depending on the origin, type, and preparation of the drink ( 11 ). Tea leaves contain 3.5% caffeine, while coffee beans have 1.1–2.2%.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
D Claim: Videos of people exhaling vape smoke through a mask, demonstrate masks as useless against a virus.. Coronavirus COVID-19 42
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
trevor COVID vaccine and VAERS discussion Coronavirus COVID-19 34
Rory Claim: Covid vaccines contains self-aware aluminum parasites Coronavirus COVID-19 34
T Claim: Offguardian article claiming that Covid PCR testing is flawed and not reliable Coronavirus COVID-19 8
P Friend has fallen into COVID-conspiracies Coronavirus COVID-19 38
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Are 99% of COVID-19 Deaths Among the Unvaccinated? Coronavirus COVID-19 43
Peter Finnish politician on possible Covid Vaccine Genocide Coronavirus COVID-19 12
P Need Debunking: "Experimental Vaccine Death Rate for Israel's Elderly 40 Times Higher Than COVID-19 Deaths" Coronavirus COVID-19 7
G Claim: China refused to hand "key data" to WHO delegation during the recent investigation in Wuhan Coronavirus COVID-19 29
Oystein Report: "23 die in Norway after receiving Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine" (NY Post) Coronavirus COVID-19 9
JMartJr Covid Stimulus Bill mandates UFO Disclosure UFOs and Aliens 5
A.G. Explained: Covid-19 research with pre-2020 dates in Google search results Coronavirus COVID-19 4
Mick West Explained: "Disappearing needles" in Covid Vaccinations Coronavirus COVID-19 1
Adam Taylor A Plug for "You Can Know Things" Coronavirus COVID-19 0
B Covid hoaxer and anti vaxxer’s son, speaks out. Coronavirus COVID-19 1
A Needs Debunking: Proposed COVID Vaccine will become part of our DNA, make us programmable Coronavirus COVID-19 37
Shade sitter Claim: Covid vaccine gives you "Serpent" DNA/marks you 666 Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Arugula Claim: Only 6% of COVID deaths are "real" - the rest died due to comorbidities Coronavirus COVID-19 12
Mendel The E-PAI report on the Origins of COVID-19 Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Dingo Claim: U.S. Covid-19 Deaths are being Artificially Inflated Coronavirus COVID-19 38
omaehamoushindeiru Claim:Natural Covid-19 broke out of Wuhan lab (not man-made) Coronavirus COVID-19 72
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 32
Z.W. Wolf President Trump's Facial Changes After His Coronavirus Diagnosis. [AI upscaled image] Coronavirus COVID-19 25
Z.W. Wolf President Trump And First Lady Test Positive For The Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 126
Critical Thinker Claim: Correlations Between Media Preference and Coronavirus Infection Rates Coronavirus COVID-19 11
derwoodii Retweet Networks Spreading Coronavirus Disinformation Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Mick West Local Perspectives on Coronavirus re-openings Coronavirus COVID-19 57
TEEJ Fake Coronavirus Detector in Iran Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Boris Johnson in ICU with Coronavirus Symptoms Coronavirus COVID-19 8
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Claim: China Mobile loses 8.116 Million subscribers because of Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 2
Agent K Claim: Harvey Weinstein has coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 9
deirdre Coronavirus and Younger people Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Mick West Coronavirus Related Shortages in Shops Coronavirus COVID-19 111
Leifer Coronavirus Statistics: Cases, Mortality, vs. Flu Coronavirus COVID-19 281
Mick West 2020 US Election - Current Events Election 2020 372
Mick West TFTRH #32 - The Skeptic of the North: Former Conspiracist, Current Skeptic Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH 9: Joe - Former Chemtrail Conspiracist, Current New World Order Conspiracist Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 51
Mick West 2017 Westminster attack Current Events 23
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
Bfahome ElectroBOOM debunks "Current Mohan" (History Channel) General Discussion 8
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
Mick West Edward Current: I was a Deluded 9/11 Truther Escaping The Rabbit Hole 3
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2
Related Articles
















































Related Articles

Top