5 ms·

You're part of the problem then.

by junon 5y ago

HeroOfAges 5y ago
When covid becomes endemic, (and it will) will you still feel that way?
anonymouswacker 5y ago
Literally no reason for me to vax (given it has no impact o on transmissibility, cuz science), but the hivemind of shitlibs and big tech doofuses here say otherwise.
- junon 5y ago
  You're dreadfully misinformed, sir/madame. Being vaccinated absolutely has an impact on transmissibility.
  - anonymouswacker 5y ago
    Vaccinated people spread it too [0]. Maybe they get better faster, but it’s not like we’ll have reliable data, peer reviewed and meta-analyzed. All I see is uncertainty and hubris in the corrupt governments & their corporate sponsors. I’ll wait for my doc to tell me I should take it, not some tool on an internet forum. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
    - junon 5y ago
      Yes, but at a significantly reduced rate. We do have this information, and we can infer trends already.
    - wwweston 5y ago
      Watch this space: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v... In particular, figure 1. And of course even if there was NO effect on spread, cooperatively participating in reducing load on hospital facilities would be helpful.
      - anonymouswacker 5y ago
        In a few months, based on progress in peer reviews, this sounds promising. As of now, not worth the risk in my eyes for a theoretical drop in spread. I lost considerable faith in trending “hot” studies in 2020 that were rushed, not peer reviewed, or heavily altered after publication. Everyone is in such a (manufactured) hurry to get this vaccine… it’s such an obvious psyop.
- loftyal 5y ago
  Please stop talking garbage on here. This isn't facebook.
sleavey 5y ago
I'd wager the problem with ivermectin and other treatments is that Trump mentioned them. I can't stand the guy, but I also can't stand the Sith attitude that you either take a stand 100% against anything he says or 100% in favour. Unfortunately for those in the first camp, there are peer reviewed studies showing promise for some repurposed medicines. Ivermectin for example has been shown to be helpful both as a prophylactic and as a treatment (which I'll try to explain below). Here is the highest quality meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID treatment, fully published in a highly respected journal [1]: "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." Another paper reports a very lucky event. As COVID swept through French care homes in March 2020, an outbreak of scabies led to an entire care home being prescribed ivermectin. Almost nobody died of COVID. Here's a DeepL translation of the results, shortened for brevity: "Sixty-nine residents and 52 staff received [ivermectin]: median resident age 90 years (84-94), 78.3% female, 98.6% at least one comorbidity at risk of severe COVID-19. 11 subjects had probable or definite COVID-19 (7/69 residents and 4/52 staff, frequency 10.1%). Among the residents, 90.9% (10/11) had minimal COVID-19, no oxygen or hospitalisation, no deaths. Among the [77 care homes with COVID outbreaks], 45 were included as controls, i.e. 3062 residents (median age 86.2 years, 77.3% women). Among them, 22.6% [95%CI 16.3-28.9] had COVID-19 vs. 1.4% [care home where ivermectin was prescribed] with an attributable mortality of 4.9% [95%CI 3.2-6.5] vs. 0% [care home where ivermectin was prescribed]." On the balance of probability, ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 both before and during the disease. I've seen anecdotes that it helps with long COVID symptoms in some too, but not read any proper studies, so we might one day add an "after" to "before and during" too. What's more, it's almost as cheap as sugar pills, and among the safest drugs ever invented in terms of side effects (read the quote from the first paper above again). That we're not even trying this in the rich west is the crime of the century. Studies of ivermectin only began in the UK a few months ago, when we already had evidence early last year that it's potentially interesting. You've got to wonder why conversations over repurposed medication are being suppressed. [1] https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402 https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402 [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.231 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.231 (in French)

You're part of the problem then.

by junon 5y ago

You're part of the problem then.

HeroOfAges 5y ago

When covid becomes endemic, (and it will) will you still feel that way?

anonymouswacker 5y ago

Literally no reason for me to vax (given it has no impact o on transmissibility, cuz science), but the hivemind of shitlibs and big tech doofuses here say otherwise.

junon 5y ago
You're dreadfully misinformed, sir/madame. Being vaccinated absolutely has an impact on transmissibility.
- anonymouswacker 5y ago
  Vaccinated people spread it too [0]. Maybe they get better faster, but it’s not like we’ll have reliable data, peer reviewed and meta-analyzed. All I see is uncertainty and hubris in the corrupt governments & their corporate sponsors. I’ll wait for my doc to tell me I should take it, not some tool on an internet forum. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
  - junon 5y ago
    Yes, but at a significantly reduced rate. We do have this information, and we can infer trends already.
  - wwweston 5y ago
    Watch this space: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1.full https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v... In particular, figure 1. And of course even if there was NO effect on spread, cooperatively participating in reducing load on hospital facilities would be helpful.
    - anonymouswacker 5y ago
      In a few months, based on progress in peer reviews, this sounds promising. As of now, not worth the risk in my eyes for a theoretical drop in spread. I lost considerable faith in trending “hot” studies in 2020 that were rushed, not peer reviewed, or heavily altered after publication. Everyone is in such a (manufactured) hurry to get this vaccine… it’s such an obvious psyop.
loftyal 5y ago
Please stop talking garbage on here. This isn't facebook.

sleavey 5y ago

I'd wager the problem with ivermectin and other treatments is that Trump mentioned them. I can't stand the guy, but I also can't stand the Sith attitude that you either take a stand 100% against anything he says or 100% in favour. Unfortunately for those in the first camp, there are peer reviewed studies showing promise for some repurposed medicines. Ivermectin for example has been shown to be helpful both as a prophylactic and as a treatment (which I'll try to explain below). Here is the highest quality meta-analysis of ivermectin for COVID treatment, fully published in a highly respected journal [1]: "Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally." Another paper reports a very lucky event. As COVID swept through French care homes in March 2020, an outbreak of scabies led to an entire care home being prescribed ivermectin. Almost nobody died of COVID. Here's a DeepL translation of the results, shortened for brevity: "Sixty-nine residents and 52 staff received [ivermectin]: median resident age 90 years (84-94), 78.3% female, 98.6% at least one comorbidity at risk of severe COVID-19. 11 subjects had probable or definite COVID-19 (7/69 residents and 4/52 staff, frequency 10.1%). Among the residents, 90.9% (10/11) had minimal COVID-19, no oxygen or hospitalisation, no deaths. Among the [77 care homes with COVID outbreaks], 45 were included as controls, i.e. 3062 residents (median age 86.2 years, 77.3% women). Among them, 22.6% [95%CI 16.3-28.9] had COVID-19 vs. 1.4% [care home where ivermectin was prescribed] with an attributable mortality of 4.9% [95%CI 3.2-6.5] vs. 0% [care home where ivermectin was prescribed]." On the balance of probability, ivermectin is effective against COVID-19 both before and during the disease. I've seen anecdotes that it helps with long COVID symptoms in some too, but not read any proper studies, so we might one day add an "after" to "before and during" too. What's more, it's almost as cheap as sugar pills, and among the safest drugs ever invented in terms of side effects (read the quote from the first paper above again). That we're not even trying this in the rich west is the crime of the century. Studies of ivermectin only began in the UK a few months ago, when we already had evidence early last year that it's potentially interesting. You've got to wonder why conversations over repurposed medication are being suppressed. [1] https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402 https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402 [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.231 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annder.2020.09.231 (in French)