Jump to content

When offered the Vaccine, will you take it?


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

If 93% of the US population got vaccinated from covid, the pandemic would be stopped in its tracks.

If 93% of the population were vaccinated AND Covid-19 recovered then herd immunity would be achieved.

93% of the population vaccinated against Polio was achieved by vaccinating vulnerable infants.  They didn't vaccinate other age groups nor those who had already had the disease.  BTW how long did it take to develop and FULLY test the Polio vaccine?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The private sector has embarked on a major campaign to reassure the public that they will not release a vaccine until they are confident it is safe and effective. We can expect a joint statement from

As many of you know I am right of center politically.  I dont think vaccines are a political issue or at least they should not be.  My family are all vaccinated. I tried to think of how I should

You are such a bag of shit wrapped in a thin veneer of pseudo self esteem. You are a walking around killer of strangers free riding on those who got vaccinated. Sponger.

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

If 93% of the population were vaccinated AND Covid-19 recovered then herd immunity would be achieved.

 

So those who are not vaccinated should be infected with the virus itself?

We could have clinics with two doors. Door One for an inert vaccine. Door Two for getting sprayed with the virus up your nostrils.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

There are two pieces of misinformation in that paragraph. 

One - life expectancy in the USA was dropping anyway largely driven by preventable "illnesses" such as obesity and diabetes.  Covid will have no impact on overall life expectancy.  If it does it will be measured in weeks not years.

Two - getting vaccinated does not reduce your chances of hospitalisation or death from Covid to zero.  As yet not one vaccine has an efficacy of 100%.

Check your facts dude.

One- Life expectancy dropped, as a direct result of COVID-19, by 2 years in the US.

Two- Did I not state near zero?  That kind of hair-splitting is simply a jackass'es diversion from the reality that my statements were correct. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe."

So why in the same statement did he not mention the Covid-19 rates?  By age group?

Which age groups does the 12.6 per million apply to?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Covid-19 isn't Polio. ...

True

Good going, genius

6 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

 ... My children are not vulnerable to serious illness from Covid-19. ...

That is simply NOT true, unless you consider death or lifelong organ damage leading to severe disability to not be "serious illness" which would be a typical Mikey piece of bullshit.

How many children have died of CoVid-19? Hint: way more than none.

Your problem is, as I've said for years, you can't grasp basic math. Assessing risk is totally beyond you.

But I'll try to help

How many young people have 1- died of covid or 2- suffered serious illness (as the rest of the non-imbecile world defines "serious illness") from covid infection... tens of thousands.

How many young people have 1- died of receiving the a covid vaccine or 2- suffered serious illness (as the rest of the non-imbecile world defines "serious illness") from receiving the a covid vaccine...  no deaths, not even one thousand serious illness, no lifelong disability.

Compare those two numbers.

Oh, and think up a distraction, quick

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

So those who are not vaccinated should be infected with the virus itself?

Now you are using the tools that you decry others of using.   

Those that are Covid-19 recovered should definitely NOT be vaccinated.  That's risk on top of risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

One- Life expectancy dropped, as a direct result of COVID-19, by 2 years in the US.

Your source?

4 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

Two- Did I not state near zero?  That kind of hair-splitting is simply a jackass'es diversion from the reality that my statements were correct. 

Who's "hair-splitting"?  "Near zero" is subjective not quantitative.  You used the term to diminish the facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Now you are using the tools that you decry others of using.   

Those that are Covid-19 recovered should definitely NOT be vaccinated.  That's risk on top of risk.

Actually, google "long-hauler syndrome" and the effect of vaccination on those suffering from it.

As usual, you are absolutely wrong

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That is simply NOT true, unless you consider death or lifelong organ damage leading to severe disability to not be "serious illness" which would be a typical Mikey piece of bullshit.

You keep banging on that it isn't true but NEVER provide any data to back it up.  Where is your evidence that children in large numbers suffer "death, or lifelong organ damage leading to severe disability"?

You are irrationally scaremongering.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

You keep banging on that it isn't true but NEVER provide any data to back it up.  Where is your evidence that children in large numbers suffer "death, or lifelong organ damage leading to severe disability"?

You are irrationally scaremongering.

Go look, like I said.

You refuse to open your eyes and continue to post blatantly false info

Did you google use of ivermectin? Nope. Long-hauler syndrome? Nope. Debilitation in young people from Covid? Nuh-uh, can't hear you LA LA LA

Is the number of young people who have died of CoVid-19 aboslutely zero? That is what you're claiming

 

7 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

....   ...  You are irrationally scaremongering.

Not at all. Fear of heights, for example, is completely rational in that one can be killed or crippled in a fall. Being cautious of things that can kill you, or totally fuck up your life, is a very sensible approach to decision-making.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, google "long-hauler syndrome" and the effect of vaccination on those suffering from it.

As usual, you are absolutely wrong

- DSK

How many "long-hauler's" are there?  What is the age distribution?  How long is a "long-haul"?

Stop repeating what you read in the tabloids or the Washington Post and start dealing in facts.  I suggest if you do your irrational fears might be assuaged. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did you google use of ivermectin? Nope.

Yes I have but I doubt you have.

Some updated information for you on Ivermectin.  A 46 t0 86% reduction in serious Covid-19 illness  by the prophylactic use of Ivermectin.  

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/abstract/9000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.98040.aspx

Abstract

Background: 

Repurposed medicines may have a role against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.

Areas of uncertainty: 

We assessed the efficacy of ivermectin treatment in reducing mortality, in secondary outcomes, and in chemoprophylaxis, among people with, or at high risk of, COVID-19 infection.

Data sources: 

We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

Conclusions:

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.

Or what about this research - https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-208785/v1

Prophylactic role of ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers

 

Conclusion and relevance Two-doses of oral ivermectin (300 μg/kg given 72 hours apart) as chemoprophylaxis among HCWs reduces the risk of COVID-19 infection by 83% in the following month. Safe, effective, and low-cost chemoprophylaxis have relevance in the containment of pandemic alongside vaccine.  

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is the number of young people who have died of CoVid-19 aboslutely zero? That is what you're claiming

I've never claimed that EVER!  However it is extremely low and much much lower than other common illnesses including influenza even after vaccination.  (Note that I didn't say "Near Zero" but could have).

Sweden - out of 1,088,000 confirmed cases 29,895 were children aged 0-9.  That's 2.7% of the total cases.  Now remember that most of this cohort continued to attend school which was deemed by many on here as "irresponsible", "dangerous", blah blah blah.

31 children were hospitalised.  That's 0.1% i.e. 99.9% of those confirmed cases did not require hospitalisation.  

9 children died with Covid-19. NINE out of 14,619 deaths with Covid-19 in Sweden were children under the age of 9.  Remember these are children that kept doing that really dangerous thing by going to school?

Yes nine deaths that is individually tragic BUT in terms of excess deaths there were none.  0.06% of the deaths with Covid-19 in Sweden were children aged 0-9.  You also need to consider that the number of actual cases of Covid-19 were more as asymptomatic cases are more common in children although it is debatable that asymptomatic cases should be measured at all.

The statistics for the next cohort (10-19yrs) in terms of mortality are even better.  47 hospitalised and 5 deaths.  Again no excess mortality.  14 individuals between the ages of 0 and 19 died in Sweden out of 14,619 confirmed cases.  You would have thought that these figures would have been significantly different given the furore over Sweden's pandemic management approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did you google use of ivermectin? Nope.

Yes I have but I doubt you have.

Have you looked at more than one?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8101859/

Study in Iran, says Ivermectin reduced severity & duration of symptoms by about a day

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext

No consistent clinical difference in two groups of patients over 30 days (longer than most studies)

https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(21)00476-1/fulltext

Ongoing study, no conclusion... this same group studied hydroxychloroquine

One of the most favorable https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

"A recently published systematic review and network meta-analysis35 compared the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients. It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observational data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients."

Kind of unspecific but suggests that yes there -is- a measurable and consistent benefit to use of ivermectin for covid. But they don't say exactly what benefits were measured consistently.

Then you get https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20201208/this-was-a-gift-to-us-ivermectin-effective-for-covid19-prophylaxis-treatment

with a lot of gushing... actual quote "It's A Gift!!"... which is also outdated, and the fine print is that it's not quoting ANY actual benefit to actual covid patients.

Then JAMA which is one of the gold standards https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

"Conclusion and Relevance  Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms." in other words it don't do shit. And this was one of the bigger studies, over 400 patients.

Not sure about these guys but it was also a big study >400 https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0009446

"The proportion of patients who required escalation of care was smaller in the IVM group than in PBO but the difference was not significant, including in a post-hoc analysis (2% with ivermectin, 5% with placebo;"

In other words, very slight difference... this article goes into greater detail about symptoms and the study was unblinded partway thru for about half the patients, due to concerns for escalating needs for care.

 

And of course, there is no shortage of peer reviews of positive claims for Ivermectin in which doctors point out the conflict of interest of many of those publishing positive results. Furthermore, claims for benefit are all over the map, it doesn't seem to produce the same benefit across a large number of people. Most of the studies reporting benefits are of small numbers of patients.

In short, no proven benefit, but possibly worth further study. Since Ivermectin is cheap, and it's already approved for use in humans, as long as the standard of care is followed then there does not seem to be harm in continuing to try it out on CoVid19 patients.

This is very much the same thing I told you a few weeks ago. I expect the same result, a lot of hooey from you and no change of your attitude because facts do not matter to you. In fact, the ONLY reason I'm posting this is for others following the topic

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Have you looked at more than one?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8101859/

Study in Iran, says Ivermectin reduced severity & duration of symptoms by about a day

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext

No consistent clinical difference in two groups of patients over 30 days (longer than most studies)

https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(21)00476-1/fulltext

Ongoing study, no conclusion... this same group studied hydroxychloroquine

One of the most favorable https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

"A recently published systematic review and network meta-analysis35 compared the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients. It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observational data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients."

Kind of unspecific but suggests that yes there -is- a measurable and consistent benefit to use of ivermectin for covid. But they don't say exactly what benefits were measured consistently.

Then you get https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20201208/this-was-a-gift-to-us-ivermectin-effective-for-covid19-prophylaxis-treatment

with a lot of gushing... actual quote "It's A Gift!!"... which is also outdated, and the fine print is that it's not quoting ANY actual benefit to actual covid patients.

Then JAMA which is one of the gold standards https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

"Conclusion and Relevance  Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms." in other words it don't do shit. And this was one of the bigger studies, over 400 patients.

Not sure about these guys but it was also a big study >400 https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0009446

"The proportion of patients who required escalation of care was smaller in the IVM group than in PBO but the difference was not significant, including in a post-hoc analysis (2% with ivermectin, 5% with placebo;"

In other words, very slight difference... this article goes into greater detail about symptoms and the study was unblinded partway thru for about half the patients, due to concerns for escalating needs for care.

 

And of course, there is no shortage of peer reviews of positive claims for Ivermectin in which doctors point out the conflict of interest of many of those publishing positive results. Furthermore, claims for benefit are all over the map, it doesn't seem to produce the same benefit across a large number of people. Most of the studies reporting benefits are of small numbers of patients.

In short, no proven benefit, but possibly worth further study. Since Ivermectin is cheap, and it's already approved for use in humans, as long as the standard of care is followed then there does not seem to be harm in continuing to try it out on CoVid19 patients.

This is very much the same thing I told you a few weeks ago. I expect the same result, a lot of hooey from you and no change of your attitude because facts do not matter to you. In fact, the ONLY reason I'm posting this is for others following the topic

- DSK

 

If you look back a bit, @EYESAILOR posted a list of side effects of Ivermectin.  They may have trouble getting people to participate in the study.  Ivermectin is not the wonder drug for covid-19 that KSFB and his elk are promoting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

If you look back a bit, @EYESAILOR posted a list of side effects of Ivermectin.  They may have trouble getting people to participate in the study.  Ivermectin is not the wonder drug for covid-19 that KSFB and his elk are promoting.

Neither was "the hydroxy" and yes, KSFB is the same elk. So was Wofsey, and tried hard to hide it.

Unlike hydroxychloroquine, there are some studies finding some positive effect; the problem is that none of the positive effects are consistent nor across a statistically significant number of patients. Another problem with it is that the places that supposedly handed out Ivermectin to the general population all had severe outbreaks and high mortality.

KSFB of course will not tell you any of that. My guess is that he will try to discredit the NIH and JAMA and The Lancet. Because he's smarter than them, of course

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Have you looked at more than one?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8101859/

Study in Iran, says Ivermectin reduced severity & duration of symptoms by about a day

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext

No consistent clinical difference in two groups of patients over 30 days (longer than most studies)

https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(21)00476-1/fulltext

Ongoing study, no conclusion... this same group studied hydroxychloroquine

One of the most favorable https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

"A recently published systematic review and network meta-analysis35 compared the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for COVID-19 in hospitalised patients. It included 110 studies (78 published and 38 unpublished) with 40 randomised clinical trials and 70 observational studies. Based on observational data, they found that high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin, ivermectin and tocilizumab were associated with reduced mortality rate in critically ill patients."

Kind of unspecific but suggests that yes there -is- a measurable and consistent benefit to use of ivermectin for covid. But they don't say exactly what benefits were measured consistently.

Then you get https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20201208/this-was-a-gift-to-us-ivermectin-effective-for-covid19-prophylaxis-treatment

with a lot of gushing... actual quote "It's A Gift!!"... which is also outdated, and the fine print is that it's not quoting ANY actual benefit to actual covid patients.

Then JAMA which is one of the gold standards https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

"Conclusion and Relevance  Among adults with mild COVID-19, a 5-day course of ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve the time to resolution of symptoms." in other words it don't do shit. And this was one of the bigger studies, over 400 patients.

Not sure about these guys but it was also a big study >400 https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0009446

"The proportion of patients who required escalation of care was smaller in the IVM group than in PBO but the difference was not significant, including in a post-hoc analysis (2% with ivermectin, 5% with placebo;"

In other words, very slight difference... this article goes into greater detail about symptoms and the study was unblinded partway thru for about half the patients, due to concerns for escalating needs for care.

 

And of course, there is no shortage of peer reviews of positive claims for Ivermectin in which doctors point out the conflict of interest of many of those publishing positive results. Furthermore, claims for benefit are all over the map, it doesn't seem to produce the same benefit across a large number of people. Most of the studies reporting benefits are of small numbers of patients.

In short, no proven benefit, but possibly worth further study. Since Ivermectin is cheap, and it's already approved for use in humans, as long as the standard of care is followed then there does not seem to be harm in continuing to try it out on CoVid19 patients.

This is very much the same thing I told you a few weeks ago. I expect the same result, a lot of hooey from you and no change of your attitude because facts do not matter to you. In fact, the ONLY reason I'm posting this is for others following the topic

- DSK

 

 

I think there's little point in saying individual drugs are making a difference.

Recovery has too many variables relating to the individual to say a particular drug is responsible.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:
28 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

In short, no proven benefit, but possibly worth further study.

Do you delight in contradicting yourself within a post?

No contradiction.

You truly do not know what science is, do you? Science is finding answers that work.

If it were already knowing all the answers, we'd call it "religion"

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

 

I think there's little point in saying individual drugs are making a difference.

Recovery has too many variables relating to the individual to say a particular drug is responsible.

 

True enough, but is it too much to ask for consistent effects?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

We searched bibliographic databases up to April 25, 2021. Two review authors sifted for studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted and certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach and additionally in trial sequential analyses for mortality. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 3406 participants met review inclusion.

@Steam Flyer yet you ignore this latest paper that reviews 24 randomised controlled trials involving 3,406 participants that concludes - 

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Neither was "the hydroxy" and yes, KSFB is the same elk. So was Wofsey, and tried hard to hide it.

Unlike hydroxychloroquine, there are some studies finding some positive effect; the problem is that none of the positive effects are consistent nor across a statistically significant number of patients. Another problem with it is that the places that supposedly handed out Ivermectin to the general population all had severe outbreaks and high mortality.

KSFB of course will not tell you any of that. My guess is that he will try to discredit the NIH and JAMA and The Lancet. Because he's smarter than them, of course

- DSK

The meta-review is interesting, and was accepted by the American Journal of Therapeutics.  I have not yet found any information that suggests the AJT is not a legitimate science site, but I will admit the disguises are becoming more and more sophisticated. 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

True enough, but is it too much to ask for consistent effects?

- DSK

That's my crux of my point.

A lack of consistent connections between an action and a result should not be grounds for that Eureka moment.

 

Near enough is not good enough!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

If you look back a bit, @EYESAILOR posted a list of side effects of Ivermectin.  They may have trouble getting people to participate in the study.  Ivermectin is not the wonder drug for covid-19 that KSFB and his elk are promoting.

Geez most of the side effects you'd get from eating a bad curry!

From the FDA website:

Ivermectin may cause side effects. Tell your doctor if any of these symptoms are severe or do not go away:

  • dizziness
  • loss of appetite
  • nausea
  • vomiting
  • stomach pain or bloating
  • diarrhea
  • constipation
  • weakness
  • sleepiness
  • uncontrollable shaking of a part of the body
  • chest discomfort

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

That's my crux of my point.

A lack of consistent connections between an action and a result should not be grounds for that Eureka moment.

 

Near enough is not good enough!

24 randomised trials involving 3,406 people?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

@Steam Flyer yet you ignore this latest paper that reviews 24 randomised controlled trials involving 3,406 participants that concludes - 

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin.

 

And you ignore everything I posted, which included two references to meta studies more recent.

Of course. Because you ignore everything that might possibly prove you wrong, then you change the subject... or just make up more bullshit.

Meanwhile, it's pretty obvious that you really do not understand what science is

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

@Steam Flyer yet you ignore this latest paper that reviews 24 randomised controlled trials involving 3,406 participants that concludes - 

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin.

 

You've spent months telling us that moderate certainty evidence shows there's large reductions in death due to untreated recovery.

Because, newsflash, not everyone dies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kate short for Bob said:
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

That's my crux of my point.

A lack of consistent connections between an action and a result should not be grounds for that Eureka moment.

 

Near enough is not good enough!

24 randomised trials involving 3,406 people?

Finding.... what, exactly? "Ivermectin Is A Gift!"?

And you dismiss NIH, JAMA, and The Lancet all at once. What do they know, piffle!!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Finding.... what, exactly? "Ivermectin Is A Gift!"?

And you dismiss NIH, JAMA, and The Lancet all at once. What do they know, piffle!!

- DSK

The guy is a fucking idiot.

Everything he says is bullshit.

You know, his name isn't even Kate?!!!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Now you are using the tools that you decry others of using.   

Those that are Covid-19 recovered should definitely NOT be vaccinated.  That's risk on top of risk.

Oh jeebus. Some humor on my part on a Friday afternoon.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:
13 minutes ago, Kate short for Bob said:

24 randomised trials involving 3,406 people?

Is that more randomised trials and more people than were used were used for vaccine development?

Umm, you know math is really one of KFSB's weak points... a character flaw he shares with Mikey, by some freakish coincidence

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Umm, you know math is really one of KFSB's weak points... a character flaw he shares with Mikey, by some freakish coincidence

- DSK

Kate is not Mikey.

Mikey does possess some education and shitfights at a heavyweight level.

Kate isn't worthy of Mikey's nut sweat.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

The meta-review is interesting, and was accepted by the American Journal of Therapeutics.  I have not yet found any information that suggests the AJT is not a legitimate science site, but I will admit the disguises are becoming more and more sophisticated. 

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/06000/Review_of_the_Emerging_Evidence_Demonstrating_the.4.aspx

There is an interesting mix of authors here. Two are suspect.  Two seem respectable.  One is a well known crackpot with some significant ethical issues.

Lead author Pierre Kory went to Med school in Grenada in the West Indies. This is usually because a applicants grades are not good enough to get into any US med schools. To his credit he has practiced pulmonary care at Wisconsin since then. He has lost two jobs in the last year for advocating a conspiracy theory that the true effectiveness of Ivomectin, steriods and intravenous vitamin C was being suppressed by the "Gods of Science" who wanted to monopolize scientific information.

The crackpot is Paul Marik. He has been formally reprimanded by the the Virginia Board of Medicine and ordered to complete additional education in prescribing practices after it was found he had prescribed Oxy , phenobarbital and other narcotics to people who were not his patients. I dont know what happens in Virginia but you lose your license in CT for that kind of stuff. In 2017, he published research  and promoted a treatment for sepsis using Hydrocortisone and Vit C, which later could not be replicated and were viewed as compromised.   This is not a guy you would choose as a co-author. 

The other 2 are reputable heads of pulmonary and critical care at reputable hospitals.   Whose names should enable an article to get published.

I really dont know. It is a strange combination.

This whole Ivomectin research attracts strange bedfellows.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NeedAClew said:

If you had covid, CDC says yes get vaccinated after you recover.

That's with our vaccines, anyway. Good enough for me.  

Screenshot_20210625-205803_Chrome.jpg

You should discuss with your PCP.   There are certain complications from severe Covid that should not be treated lightly.

A mild case probably did not produce enough anti bodies .....but check with your pcp before charging into vaccine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wess said:

So again so its clear... go do whatever you want to do. The issue is that you and your self righteous merry band of fools want to force others into your science experiment and beliefs.  No.  You do you without judgement and I'll do me (ideally without your endless whining and judgement but I know that ain't gonna happen). 

Just as a matter of interest, where do you stand on other " tragedy of the commons" issues? Do you try to limit carbon based fuel usage? Do you try and limit pollution, or leave it for the folks downstream of you to deal with your sewage? After all, it is their choice where they choose to live. What about thinks like donating blood and organs? Gives no benefit to you but comes with some small risk?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Se7en said:

Just as a matter of interest, where do you stand on other " tragedy of the commons" issues?

How do you apply "tragedy of the commons" and externalities theory to vaccination?  I'd be interested to hear your argument.

2 hours ago, Se7en said:

Do you try to limit carbon based fuel usage?

No.  Why should I when there is no evidence that alternatives are any better.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

I'm still trying to work out how those that are recovered from covid and then vaccinated are risk on top of risk.

For there to be no additional risk the inherent level of risk of the vaccine would have to be zero.  None of them are without risk some have more than others.  So if you have acquired immunity from recovering from Covid-19 getting vaccinated is an unnecessary additional risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

For there to be no additional risk the inherent level of risk of the vaccine would have to be zero.  None of them are without risk some have more than others.  So if you have acquired immunity from recovering from Covid-19 getting vaccinated is an unnecessary additional risk.

Except once you've recovered from covid, that part of the risk equation becomes zero.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I guess not all Professors can be treated equal.

Can you discredit the authors of this study?

Yep, fucking easy.  You lying fuckling shill Mikey.

Proof that Mikey is on the take from the dark side,  But the @EYESAILOR has already done a good job at showing that.

Pierre Kory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pierre Kory is an American critical care physician who gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic for advocating widespread off-label use of certain drugs as treatments for COVID-19. Kory testified in front of the U.S. Senate twice regarding COVID-19. During his testimony in December 2020, Kory erroneously claimed that the antiparasitic medication ivermectin was a "wonder drug" with "miraculous effectiveness" against COVID-19.[1]

 

MikeyKateInvermectin.jpg.38d4f32c23f346754c34fc486effeae9.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, random. said:

Yep, fucking easy.  You lying fuckling shill Mikey.

Proof that Mikey is on the take from the dark side,  But the @EYESAILOR has already done a good job at showing that.

Pierre Kory ISN'T an Author of the paper I posted.

3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I guess not all Professors can be treated equal.

Can you discredit the authors of this study?

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/abstract/9000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.98040.aspx

That said Pierre Kory is right according to the two papers I posted.

I guess conspiracies come and go like the made in the Wuhan Lab one.

Pays to keep an open mind @random.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

For there to be no additional risk the inherent level of risk of the vaccine would have to be zero.  None of them are without risk some have more than others.  So if you have acquired immunity from recovering from Covid-19 getting vaccinated is an unnecessary additional risk.

so is walking across the road.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

Pays to keep an open mind @random.

MikeyLateShitforbrains.png.3e5d21c90f88989a0f1b1336d6e600bb.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

How do you apply "tragedy of the commons" and externalities theory to vaccination?  I'd be interested to hear your argument.

When used generally, the "tragedy of the commons" roughly refers to where individuals pursue personal gain without considering the well being of society as a whole. That was the context in which I was asking the question.

For a healthy 40 yo, the personal gain is in (percieved ) net reduced individual risk through not getting the vaccine. However society as a whole is slightly worse off from everyone who choses not to vaccinate.

I'm curious as to whether folks who don't vaccinate also think it's OK to fish beyond bag limits, pollute freely and sail through race start lines when not racing, but still calling starboard on everyone.

Oh - I'm not taking up the carbon driven global warming troll, it was a mistake to use that as an example and expect a rational response to the intent of the question.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

When offered the Vaccine, will you take it?

Yes

finally got 1 0f 2 of AZ .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 84 and had my 1st jab of the pfizer vaccine this morning about 10 hours ago, zero effect on me so far but they said that I could have a sore arm tomorrow and I might want to stay in bed for a while.  Will report later if I am still alive.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kate short for Bob said:

I guess not all Professors can be treated equal.

Can you discredit the authors of this study?

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/abstract/9000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.98040.aspx

Tess Lawrie and her team at Evidence Based consultancy and BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommended Development) are the authors of this paper. She is at the epicenter of the Ivermectin debate. 

I thought she would be supportive of the recently announced PRINCIPLE trial to investigate the efficacy of Ivermectin. So I was surprised to read that she wrote:

"More placebo-controlled clinical trials of ivermectin are unethical and are definitely not needed. We know Ivermectin saves lives. The investigators of the PRINCIPLE trial also know this, as we informed them months ago."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terry Hollis said:

I am 84 and had my 1st jab of the pfizer vaccine this morning about 10 hours ago, zero effect on me so far but they said that I could have a sore arm tomorrow and I might want to stay in bed for a while.  Will report later if I am still alive.

Yah , sore Shoulder syndrome ...lasts about 24 hrs

second shot the same ... sore shoulder syndrome ...plus a slight hangover 

felt like I got into a bad batch of San Miguel 

Hangover lasted about half a day 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ease the sheet. said:

Kate is not Mikey.

Mikey does possess some education and shitfights at a heavyweight level.

Kate isn't worthy of Mikey's nut sweat.

 

 

I think it's the same person, they're very much the same in all respects... KSFB even goes on and on about how flu kills more people. which was one of Mikey's favorite rants.

I could wrong, of course. It happens, occasionally :rolleyes:

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

Tess Lawrie and her team at Evidence Based consultancy and BIRD (British Ivermectin Recommended Development) are the authors of this paper. She is at the epicenter of the Ivermectin debate. 

I thought she would be supportive of the recently announced PRINCIPLE trial to investigate the efficacy of Ivermectin. So I was surprised to read that she wrote:

"More placebo-controlled clinical trials of ivermectin are unethical and are definitely not needed. We know Ivermectin saves lives. The investigators of the PRINCIPLE trial also know this, as we informed them months ago."

Yes, again we see the lack of understanding what science is. Science is finding answers that work, it's an ongoing process. Gravity is only a theory, and we've been working on refining and improving that theory for over 300 years.

These people already know all the answers. "Ivermectin Is A Gift!!" They don't want science, they don't want to look for correct answers and better answers... they want -us- to believe in their answer

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tess Lawrie's paper advocating Ivermectin and her you tube video is controversial.  I havent had time to compare the conflicting claims.

Here is Tess Lawrie's original paper

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-317485/v1/0696442e-24ca-49b1-9655-a3aa500bba04.pdf

Here is an example of criticism https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-isnt-a-highly-effective-drug-for-treating-covid-19-tess-lawrie/

Here is a study that found no benefit from Ivermectin https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

It is important to realize that Tess has not done original research into Ivermectin or conducted a trial. She and her colleagues have blended the results of trials carried out elsewhere. She lists all those trials. Some have been published, some have not. Ultimately her "low to moderate" certainty hangs on the quality of those underlying trials which I have not looked through.  They range from a study of 24 patients in Spain 12 treated vs 12 on placebo to 100+ in Egypt compared against another form of treatment. I assume that eventually there will be some form of peer review and independent studies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yes, again we see the lack of understanding what science is. Science is finding answers that work, it's an ongoing process. Gravity is only a theory, and we've been working on refining and improving that theory for over 300 years.

These people already know all the answers. "Ivermectin Is A Gift!!" They don't want science, they don't want to look for correct answers and better answers... they want -us- to believe in their answer

- DSK

Ivermectin is a gift. It is a drug that has saved tens of thousands of lives and improved living conditions...as an anti-parasitic.

I hope we can find an anti-viral that works against Covid 19 and its variants.   Thus far, even the most favored (Remdesivir) is okay at best. We have not found a highly effective anti-viral, so if Ivermectin shows potential, I am all in favor of investigation. However, thus far, the evidence is unclear at best.  If it really was effective, one would have expected the Colombian study to have produced positive results. Effective drugs tend to be confirmed by successive trials.  Columbia has been using Ivermectin and was looking for confirmation.  More work needed !

A dual strategy where we combine vaccines as a prophylactic and anti-virals as treatment would be the most powerful way forward.  Anti-virals are harder to discover than vaccines.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How is a group of 24 or even 100 patients (volunteers?) even remotely representative of the general population? Age, ethnicities and gender aside?

To this day WHO reports 471,786,361 people fully vaccinated and over 1,031,602,050 had at least one dose. [Soure: WHO]

I understand that most of the reported presumed side effects or complications are within the statistical numbers of the past years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wess said:

LOL.  Oh well; back to work. 

Your body; your choice!

Don't ask; don't tell!

I take it that you're pro choice on abortion issues too then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

I take it that you're pro choice on abortion issues too then?

Not that Wess's position on abortion is any of our business but my bet is that he is pro choice.  You will not be able to put him into any neat category. He believes strongly in freedom of choice.

I also believe in the freedom of the individual. However I also believe that society and communities have better lives if they concur on certain limited parameters for the commonweal.

I believe, that subject to safety standards, immunization against covid 19 via vaccine meets my standard of commonweal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I have started taking a quick look at some of the trials underlying Tess Lawrie's meta analysis of trials.

I looked at the trials in India and Bangladesh which were using a placebo and had 157 and 74 candidates .  

Both recommended further trials. Neither trial achieved statistical significance but observed enough to recommend further investigation. The differences between cohorts was sufficiently small and do not come close to the efficacy of vaccines.  Whatever the best claims are for Ivermectin......it is no replacement for the vaccine .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, posted this in the other thread, then realized the ivermectin discussion was going on here:  

The off-label drug use for treating covid-19 controversy is creating problems in the scientific community:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-pulls-special-covid-19-issue-after-content-dispute-68721

Ivermectin isn't the only drug being considered for off-label use in treating covid-19.  However:

"Ivermectin has been a particular subject of misinformation during the pandemic, prompting repeated warnings and guidance from health organizations and one of the drug’s manufacturers, Merck, that there is insufficient evidence at this time to recommend its use as a COVID-19 treatment. "

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Yes, again we see the lack of understanding what science is. Science is finding answers that work, it's an ongoing process. Gravity is only a theory, and we've been working on refining and improving that theory for over 300 years.

These people already know all the answers. "Ivermectin Is A Gift!!" They don't want science, they don't want to look for correct answers and better answers... they want -us- to believe in their answer

- DSK

Gravity is definitely only a theory. I saw a hoverboard on the river yesterday. IT was nnot obeying the laws of gravity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Sorry, posted this in the other thread, then realized the ivermectin discussion was going on here:  

The off-label drug use for treating covid-19 controversy is creating problems in the scientific community:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-pulls-special-covid-19-issue-after-content-dispute-68721

Ivermectin isn't the only drug being considered for off-label use in treating covid-19.  However:

"Ivermectin has been a particular subject of misinformation during the pandemic, prompting repeated warnings and guidance from health organizations and one of the drug’s manufacturers, Merck, that there is insufficient evidence at this time to recommend its use as a COVID-19 treatment. "

Actually I have concluded that this thread is not the right place for Ivermectin discussion. It will never be a substitute for a vaccine. Currently, even its most ardent fans are not claiming that it is 90% effective as a prophylactic.  If it shows any kind of efficacy and safety, it will be an alternative to anti-virals .   The case for vaccines now depends entirely on the safety of the vaccines.  The effectiveness of the vaccines is not questioned.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Se7en said:

When used generally, the "tragedy of the commons" roughly refers to where individuals pursue personal gain without considering the well being of society as a whole. That was the context in which I was asking the question.

That isn't an entirely accurate portrayal of the "tragedy of the commons".  You hypothesise that the tragedy occurred because individuals didn't think of the societal good.  How you define "societal good" is another debate.

However one explanation for the "tragedy" is that the "commons" do not have individual ownership rights and because of that those individuals do not suffer the externalities or hardship of causing harm to the commons.  

10 hours ago, Se7en said:

For a healthy 40 yo, the personal gain is in (percieved ) net reduced individual risk through not getting the vaccine. However society as a whole is slightly worse off from everyone who choses not to vaccinate.

That isn't an accurate transference of the tragedy of the commons hypothesis nor vaccination.

How do you measure the externalities of vaccination?  What are they?  Who has caused them?  

If an at low risk individual chooses to not be vaccinated it makes no difference to society as a whole.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

It is important to realize that Tess has not done original research into Ivermectin or conducted a trial. She and her colleagues have blended the results of trials carried out elsewhere. She lists all those trials. Some have been published, some have not. Ultimately her "low to moderate" certainty hangs on the quality of those underlying trials which I have not looked through.  They range from a study of 24 patients in Spain 12 treated vs 12 on placebo to 100+ in Egypt compared against another form of treatment. I assume that eventually there will be some form of peer review and independent studies

So you in effect are diminishing all meta-studies that use complex statistical methods in their determination?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EYESAILOR said:

So I have started taking a quick look at some of the trials underlying Tess Lawrie's meta analysis of trials.

I looked at the trials in India and Bangladesh which were using a placebo and had 157 and 74 candidates .  

Both recommended further trials. Neither trial achieved statistical significance but observed enough to recommend further investigation. The differences between cohorts was sufficiently small and do not come close to the efficacy of vaccines.  Whatever the best claims are for Ivermectin......it is no replacement for the vaccine .

@EYESAILOR you are going down the same rabbit hole the rest of the rabid mob.

Can you explain to us all the statistical methods used in meta-study?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

Actually I have concluded that this thread is not the right place for Ivermectin discussion. It will never be a substitute for a vaccine. Currently, even its most ardent fans are not claiming that it is 90% effective as a prophylactic.  If it shows any kind of efficacy and safety, it will be an alternative to anti-virals .   The case for vaccines now depends entirely on the safety of the vaccines.  The effectiveness of the vaccines is not questioned.  

Actually, it's OK to question stuff... in fact that is the basis of science anyway.

It's not OK to use bubbly fiction and whackadoodle bullshit to dismiss facts and real-world observation, careful measurement, all the things that going into the process of science finding correct, working, answers.

It's also not OK to have a body of trolls pushing harmful disinformation, which is what we're trying to deal with

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

It's not OK to use bubbly fiction and whackadoodle bullshit to dismiss facts and real-world observation, careful measurement, all the things that going into the process of science finding correct, working, answers.

So can you give us all an example of "bubbly fiction and whatadoodle bullshit" that I've posted on SA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

So you in effect are diminishing all meta-studies that use complex statistical methods in their determination?

No. I am merely clarifying that this is a meta analysis, not an Randomized Control Trial managed by the authors. It is an analysis of a number of other smaller trials conducted by others.

The basic theory behind meta analysis is super simple. If you have a dozen small RCTs then the results can be more meaningful if the results are combined. The conclusions can be statistically stronger than the results of any of the individual trial, due to increased numbers of subjects, and in some cases better representation of age cohorts etc.

However the execution is super complex and can be subject to all kinds of manipulation, so peer review is even more important.  There are lies, damned lies and statistics.

The key ingredient in meta analysis is heterogeneity of data and end points.  The end point they are measuring should be consistent across the studies.  There is not a lot of statistical significance to combining a study that looked at mild cases of CV19 measuring temperature of the patients with another that looked at the viral  load of patients with severe covid.

The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement was published to provide guidelines for conducting meta-analyses, with the goal of improving the quality of published meta-analyses of randomized trials.  (http://www.consort-statement.org/QUOROM.pdf).

One component is that the gathering of the data should be independent from the analysis. The highest standard of data in a meta-analysis is to include patient level data from the studies combined in the meta-analysis.  The test results should be qualified and adjusted depending on homogeneity of population and end points.

Since there was not much information in the report itself, I dived into a couple of the trials themselves.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kate short for Bob said:

@EYESAILOR you are going down the same rabbit hole the rest of the rabid mob.

Can you explain to us all the statistical methods used in meta-study?

No I cannot explain even a third of the statistical methods in meta-analysis.

I can understand the basic concepts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2021 at 2:01 AM, Kate short for Bob said:

 

BTW way 50% more than something that is 40% more than 1 isn't close to 2 times 1.

Is this an example of whatsdoodle math?   :)

 

Sorry....couldnt resist. Its going to be some time before you finally live that down..  No offense.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

No. I am merely clarifying that this is a meta analysis, not an Randomized Control Trial managed by the authors. It is an analysis of a number of other smaller trials conducted by others.

24 randomised trials with over 3,000 participants.

11 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

The basic theory behind meta analysis is super simple. If you have a dozen small RCTs then the results can be more meaningful if the results are combined. The conclusions can be statistically stronger than the results of any of the individual trial, due to increased numbers of subjects, and in some cases better representation of age cohorts etc.

Correct.

7 minutes ago, EYESAILOR said:

No I cannot explain even a third of the statistical methods in meta-analysis.

Yet rather than debate the results you'd prefer to take an unscientific ad hominem attack approach on one of the authors?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the risk adverse and alarmist Government organisation Public Health England said the Indian (Delta) variant was only 64% more infectious than Alpha not 200%.  Even then they got the calculation wrong based on their own figures.

Their figures showed that that Delta variant secondary attack rates were only 3.3% greater than the Alpha variant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To summarize where there appears to be agreement in the discussion so far:

1) The vaccine is less dangerous than the disease, even for young people.  While there have been statements to the contrary, no evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise.

2) Even though the risk of serious covid symptoms is low for young people, young people who don't get the vaccine and subsequently are infected with covid-19 do have some risk of lifelong damage from the disease, while the known side effects of the vaccine for young people (notably myo- or pericarditis) are mild and temporary.

3) While there are some studies going on, and some relatively small (compared to the studies on the vaccine) studies that suggest ivermectin may be an effective treatment for covid-19, there isn't enough evidence yet to suggest that young people don't get the vaccine because there is an effective alternative treatment.  

4) Ivermectin has some side effects that may lead to a worse outcome for patients than known side effects of the vaccine.  Health officials are not recommending it as a treatment. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is interesting to read the accounts of how Trump was treated - according to the article I read, he was given monoclonal antibodies and remdesvir.  With all the hype out there on ivermectin, and Trump himself advocating hydroxychloroquine at one point, the doctors treating him did not give him ivermectin.  While this is an anecdote, it is an important one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

4) Ivermectin has some side effects that may lead to a worse outcome for patients than known side effects of the vaccine.  Health officials are not recommending it as a treatment. 

4 billion doses of Ivermectin and 16 deaths.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

1) The vaccine is less dangerous than the disease, even for young people.  While there have been statements to the contrary, no evidence has been presented to suggest otherwise.

2) Even though the risk of serious covid symptoms is low for young people, young people who don't get the vaccine and subsequently are infected with covid-19 do have some risk of lifelong damage from the disease, while the known side effects of the vaccine for young people (notably myo- or pericarditis) are mild and temporary.

3) While there are some studies going on, and some relatively small (compared to the studies on the vaccine) studies that suggest ivermectin may be an effective treatment for covid-19, there isn't enough evidence yet to suggest that young people don't get the vaccine because there is an effective alternative treatment.

Define "young people"?  You list of points are meaningless unless you define "young people"!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EYESAILOR said:

Is this an example of whatsdoodle math?   :)

 

Sorry....couldnt resist. Its going to be some time before you finally live that down..  No offense.

 

Well I find it more interesting that you will go on a crusade to defend vaccination but will willingly accept misinformation when it supports your cause. 

For example "The Delta/India is 200% more infectious".

Surely you know that that is incorrect.  I realise you are a medical professional rather than a scientist as a scientist would be quick to point out that that statement is false regardless of their views on vaccination.

What we see though is a statement like that made and all the doomsayers sit round cut the top off a lemon, purse their lips and suck while uttering statements of agreement and doom!!!!  Anyone who challenges the veracity of the statement purely from a science perspective is deemed to be satanic!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kate short for Bob said:

Well I find it more interesting that you will go on a crusade to defend vaccination but will willingly accept misinformation when it supports your cause. 

For example "The Delta/India is 200% more infectious".

Surely you know that that is incorrect.  I realise you are a medical professional rather than a scientist as a scientist would be quick to point out that that statement is false regardless of their views on vaccination.

What we see though is a statement like that made and all the doomsayers sit round cut the top off a lemon, purse their lips and suck while uttering statements of agreement and doom!!!!  Anyone who challenges the veracity of the statement purely from a science perspective is deemed to be satanic!

 

I have never used that statement, or looked at the rate of infection of the Delta variant  or referred to the Delta variant as a rationale to get vaccinated.

An infection rate that is double the infection rate of a prior version of a virus is a large increase. I doubt it. However its not beyond the realms of possibility. As I posted  12 months ago, the Covid 19 virus molecule is very inefficient at transmission. It does very poorly at attachment. It overcomes this disadvantage by sheer numbers. The viral load discharged from an infected host is more than 7x that of the flue virus.    On the plus side, this meant that masks might be effective because we dont have to eliminate every molecule, just the large majority, It is very inefficient.    If it became more efficient, that would be a worrying variation. However I have literally no view on the rate of transmission of the Delta variant, other than it is somewhat more efficient because it is beating the alpha variant.

You asked for an example of whatsadoodle bullshit.........I was just trying to be helpful by supplying an example.

Somebody posted that "BTW  50% more than something that is 40% more than 1 isn't close to 2 times 1"

I thought it was a worthy example.   Because of course, 50% more than something that is 40% more than 1 is very close to 2 times 1 .

 

Link to post
Share on other sites