Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Covid III: Delta Force


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 9/16/2021 at 9:30 AM, The Nehor said:

On a lighter note:

Of course I got the vaccine with the stupid name. Comirnaty? Really? SpikeVax is a good name. Vaxzervria is at least decent.

I occasionally do surveys for companies who are naming their medicines.  They give us a bunch of names, tell us what it is for and ask what we think of them. I often wonder just how they are coming up with them.  

I can't remember any and couldn't share if I could, but I get lots of thoughts like "zombeyfrever for a sleeping pill?"

Edited by Rain
Posted
9 minutes ago, Rain said:

I occasionally do surveys for companies who are naming their medicines.  They give us a bunch of names, tell us what it for and ask what we thinking of them. I often wonder just how they are coming up with them.  

I can't remember any and couldn't share if I could, but I get lots of thoughts like "zombeyfrever for a sleeping pill?"

I mean they sound vaguely villainous. Comirnaty is Moriarty’s little brother working hard to foil Sherlock Holmes, SpikeVax is a Spider-Man villain, and Vaxzervria is clearly a James Bond femme fatale villiainess.

Posted

Has anyone linked to this preprint yet? 'Impact of Delta on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK'.

Some interesting findings, including:

Quote

The results from this large community surveillance study show that vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 [Pfizer] or ChAdOx1 [AstraZeneca] still significantly reduces the risk of new PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, whereas the two vaccines provided similar benefits when Alpha was dominant, benefits from two ChAdOx1 [AstraZeneca] doses are reduced with Delta more than two BNT162b2 [Pfizer] doses, although two ChAdOx1 [AstraZeneca] doses still provide similar protection to that from previous natural infection [emphasis added] ...

The dynamics of protection varied over time from second vaccination, and by vaccine type, with initially larger effectiveness with BNT162b2 [Pfizer] than ChAdOx1 [AstraZeneca], which then become more similar by ∼4-5 months due to more rapid waning of effectiveness with BNT162b2 [Pfizer] ...

 

Posted
6 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Hubby and I are sitting in recliners in the ER. He just received the Regeneron infusion because of two positive home tests along with coughing, wheezing and a drop in oxygen. They offered it to me but I’m not feeling sick so I declined. It’s all kind of crazy, but hopefully this keeps him out of the hospital.

That's awful. I sincerely wish it passes quickly and both of you are fully well.

Posted
11 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Hubby and I are sitting in recliners in the ER. He just received the Regeneron infusion because of two positive home tests along with coughing, wheezing and a drop in oxygen. They offered it to me but I’m not feeling sick so I declined. It’s all kind of crazy, but hopefully this keeps him out of the hospital.

I’m so glad he could get the antibodies. I hope you have quick recoveries. 🙏

Posted
18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think that is a good recommendation, and I think it should apply to all who are under 18 too.

Posted (edited)

Here is some good news. 

From the makers of the Ivermectin:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50253398/merck-says-experimental-pill-cuts-worst-effects-of-covid-19

7.3% of those taking the medicine were hospitalized or died within 30 days, compared to 14.1% taking a placebo.  

Not near as effective as the vaccine at reducing hospitalization and death, but it is nice to have another potential tool in the belt for Covid.  The difficulty with these types of medicines will always be that you have to start taking it within 5 days of symptom onset when symptoms are still mild.   It is more common for people to wait and only seek medical treatment when it becomes severe.  Then it will be too late.  The older and more vulnerable populations will be more likely to seek early treatment though.  Those who don't believe that Covid is all that serious (more likely to be unvaccinated) are the ones that are less likely to seek early treatment before it gets severe.  That population accounts for a large percentage of who is filling our hospitals, so it is doubtful in my mind that it will have much of an impact in reducing hospitalizations in that population.  This is great news for the immunocompromised who may not be as protected from the vaccine and who are more likely to seek early treatment.   

It will be interesting to see what Ivermectin proponents make of this news. 

 

Edited by pogi
Posted
3 hours ago, pogi said:

Here is some good news. 

From the makers of the Ivermectin:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50253398/merck-says-experimental-pill-cuts-worst-effects-of-covid-19

7.3% of those taking the medicine were hospitalized or died within 30 days, compared to 14.1% taking a placebo.  

Not near as effective as the vaccine at reducing hospitalization and death, but it is nice to have another potential tool in the belt for Covid.  The difficulty with these types of medicines will always be that you have to start taking it within 5 days of symptom onset when symptoms are still mild.   It is more common for people to wait and only seek medical treatment when it becomes severe.  Then it will be too late.  The older and more vulnerable populations will be more likely to seek early treatment though.  Those who don't believe that Covid is all that serious (more likely to be unvaccinated) are the ones that are less likely to seek early treatment before it gets severe.  That population accounts for a large percentage of who is filling our hospitals, so it is doubtful in my mind that it will have much of an impact in reducing hospitalizations in that population.  This is great news for the immunocompromised who may not be as protected from the vaccine and who are more likely to seek early treatment.   

It will be interesting to see what Ivermectin proponents make of this news. 

 

If it works, great.  Greater still would be if the price point is exciting for Merck's bottom line.  Their ivermectin patent ran out and the potential profits from it are negligible, so, better to make an alternative while attacking the cheap medicine, for profit's sake.  Even so, if it works, great.

Finding a medicine that works, wherever, should be the goal, not a particular agenda.

Anyway, what do you think would occur if there were discovered a medicine that was 100% effective at preventing death from covid-19?  What would that do to the vaccine proponents and their agenda to vaccinate everyone?  It probably would hurt the agenda because fear would no longer be there, right?

 

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Finding a medicine that works, wherever, should be the goal

I'm sorry that saving lives isn't your stated primary goal.

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

If it works, great.  Greater still would be if the price point is exciting for Merck's bottom line.  Their ivermectin patent ran out and the potential profits from it are negligible, so, better to make an alternative while attacking the cheap medicine, for profit's sake.  Even so, if it works, great.

Finding a medicine that works, wherever, should be the goal, not a particular agenda.

Anyway, what do you think would occur if there were discovered a medicine that was 100% effective at preventing death from covid-19?  What would that do to the vaccine proponents and their agenda to vaccinate everyone?  It probably would hurt the agenda because fear would no longer be there, right?

If you want to start another thread, I would be happy to address your questions there.  This thread is to discuss the science and advancements in medicine. 

Edited by pogi
Posted
3 hours ago, pogi said:

It will be interesting to see what Ivermectin proponents make of this news. 

You asked a question. 
 

8 minutes ago, pogi said:
21 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

If you want to start another thread, I would be happy to address your questions there.  This thread is to discuss the science and advancements in medicine. 

This seems like you are attacking him for answering your question. This is how I interpreted your response. Was that your intent?

Posted
15 minutes ago, Chum said:

I'm sorry that saving lives isn't your stated primary goal.

Isn’t advocating for finding medicine that works about saving lives? I am confused.

Posted
13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You asked a question. 
 

This seems like you are attacking him for answering your question. This is how I interpreted your response. Was that your intent?

It wasn't a question - no question mark.   I genuinely am curious to see how that crowd will react.   I didn't expect or anticipate this thread to be used for that purpose.  I don't want to derail the thread and get this one closed too, I was just musing out-loud. 

Posted
1 minute ago, pogi said:

It wasn't a question - no question mark.   I genuinely am curious to see how that crowd will react.   I didn't expect or anticipate this thread to be used for that purpose.  I don't want to derail the thread and get this one closed too, I was just musing out-loud. 

It came across like an invitation to address the topic. So, maybe don’t muse about things you don’t want discussed. 😏

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Isn’t advocating for finding medicine that works about saving lives? I am confused.

It's wise to take into account his history of advancing anti-vax and other deathcult talking points.  If he has clearly renounced his earlier positions, we should certainly take that into account.

Edited by Chum
Posted
28 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you want to start another thread, I would be happy to address your questions there.  This thread is to discuss the science and advancements in medicine. 

It directly goes to the advances in medicine and how they might be hindered by profit motives. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...